Black and White Photography magazine

P

Peter S

Guest
Hello everybody,

I assume I am not the only member here with a subscription to the UK magazine B&W photography. Just wondering whether I am alone in not really liking the new direction the mag seems to be going. Have been reading it for at least a couple of years and always looked forward to next months magazine, but with the recent change of the guard it seems as if the editor is filling up the magazine all by himself with very "interesting" stories about his adventures with a Leica MP etc etc. In the recent magazine he even discusses how to shoot sheep....

Maybe I am one of the few not liking it, but am seriously considering not renewing my subscription, but then wat? As much as the internet gives us meeting places like RFF where we can discuss photography, buy and sell equipment or just talk about fondling cameras I always have liked to also read about photography on paper. Do you have any suggestions for other magazines focussing on B&W photography ? I live in Amsterdam, but do not mind having to subscribe to an overseas mag.

P.
 
I've read Black and White Photography for a number of years, and while I still enjoy it, it's not nearly as good as it was a few years ago. There is far and away less useful technical information, fewer images, more advertising and more equipment reviews. It seems to be going to way of pretty much every other photography magazine out there.
 
If oyu're looking for alternatives, there's a thread somewhere on here to do with photo mags. I've had a quick look but can't find it. I'm sure B&W Photography was mentioned, so that might work as a search key. Have a look around.
 
If you're looking for alternatives, there's a thread somewhere on here to do with photo mags. I've had a quick look but can't find it. I'm sure B&W Photography was mentioned, so that might work as a search key. Have a look around.
 
I'd say write the editor and express your view, and count your blessings :)

Compared to the other "trash" out here at the bookshelf, that magazine is immensely more useful and enjoyable for me.

For example, I can't name another magazine that has an ongoing article that pits two printers to produce vastly different prints from the same negative.

Also, I like off-the-cuff interview with David Bailey recently, in which we can see clearly that the magazine doesn't worship the ground that the sponsors walk on. At least not as bad as others.
 
Although I haven't read it, Lenswork has been mentioned by others as a good photography mag w/ good paper and prints. I've heard you can find it at Borders and Barnes and Noble.
 
Monochrom (Germany)

Much more colour-oriented: Foam. Published (as far as I recall) in Amsterdam.

Don't knock equipment reviews too much. Where else do you read film-oriented B+W tests? (OK so I'm biased, being married to Frances Schultz).

Cheers

R.
 
I almost threw a recent issue away when the editor writes about how digital allows you to superimpose a "better" sky on a scene. Seriously considering not renewing.

If you're looking for a magazine which features B&W photography rather than equipment try these:

http://www.privatephotoreview.com/en/index.php
http://www.foto8.com/ei8ht/previews/index.html (colour and B&W)
http://www.foto8.com/cat--Back-Issues--EI8HT_backissues.html

I've subscribed to the first and bought back issues of the second, waiting for them to relaunch it as a semi-annual.
 
Will- you are right about "the Printers Art" section being one of the more interesting things in the magazine; but in recent issues, even that has often been a piece about digital work, which is far less interesting to me.

And Roger- I understand your position on the reviews. In fact, I will stop and read anything I find written by you or Frances, even your reviews which are generally excellent. But as a general rule, you will have to agree that equipment reviews in photo magazines tend to treat advertisers with kid gloves. Not that you two are guilty of this, but editors have to make the cash cows happy, and this tends not to serve the reader- except in the sense that it allows the magazine to continue to publish.
 
I'm afraid this is my fault. I was a casual reader of this mag for a couple of years back when it was really at its peak, but as soon as I actually got around to subscribing, it turns to crap. Damn! Happens to me every time ;)
 
drewbarb said:
And Roger- I understand your position on the reviews. . . editors have to make the cash cows happy, and this tends not to serve the reader- except in the sense that it allows the magazine to continue to publish.
Click to expand...
Dear Drew,

Very true, except that you might well be astonished at how many people REALLY CARE about reviews, and love to read them.

They're also useful for bulking a magazine out: there is a limit to how many genuinely different technique pieces you can find.

As far as possible, Frances and I try to review only kit we think we might like or need, on the grounds that if we want to know what it's like, others probably do too. It's a bit like asking on the forum here, "Anyone got a...?"

Admittedly we do the occasional 'Thought it might be interesting...' piece, and sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. We also have different reactions to different bits of kit. For example, Frances really likes the Zeiss 18/4 and I can't see the point, whereas I really love the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar and she thinks it's quite nice but would prefer the 50/2.5 Summarit.

Negative reviews almost never get published (Amateur Photographer is a noble exception) and they also stop manufacturers sending stuff out for review (no-one can afford to BUY kit for review any more).

There is, therefore, little point in writing negative reviews, but at least when Frances and I review something, we say what we think. If it's really awful, we'll contact the manufacturer and say, "We're not going to review this because..."

You can therefore be confident that if we do review something, and say we like it, we're not just being polite/keeping advertisers happy, whereas if we don't review something it may either be that we don't like it or haven't been able to get hold of it (or haven't found anyone to publish a review, which is increasingly common with film kit).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I havn't picked up this months issue yet, but I agree with the previous points, and I thoroughly enjoyed the David Bailey interview piece last month too.

There does seem to be too much padding in the past few issues, the editors MP article had a number of errors (35/1.2 Summicron &c.) - once the advertising is taken out you see that there isn't a huge amount of editorial, so I'd expect it to be accurate and 'tight'.

Some of the equipment reviews are rather lacking too - the Manfrotto 055Pro one was featured on the front of the magazine but was little more than a paragraph.

Apart from having something to read on the bog, magazines have one thing over on web literature - printed images. I hope they keep up the portfolio section, and perhaps improve the paper quality - I have/had a few copies of a Chinese photography magazine called "Chinese Photography" and although I couldn't understand anything the layout was beautiful - photos presented well with distracting adverts on other pages, lovely paper (thick semi-matte, not the glossier one used in B&W).

You're right, this is the only magazine I now buy, I stopped buying Amatuer Photographer when I realised I only ever read the Ivor Mantle & Roger Hicks pieces...
 
Yes its a pity. This was a great mag - I even had a snap or two published but there seems to be far too much 'is film or digital better' stuff recycled in every article. Its almost as if there is an editorial dictate to do this. The portfolios and readers snaps are great tho. Will wait and see if I subscride again
 
Mmm... I can read all of that while I wait for my girlfriend to choose a magazine in WH Smiths :)

And £2.25 a week is a pint of beer a week, no contest.
 
I've stopped buying it because has become so ill informed - it is now rather like the other miriad of photo mags on the shelves peddling ill informed advice to an audience with more knowledge than the authors in many cases - and how many times are they going to publish that picture of the lockup doors?

Roger makes a point about reviews being popular but I wonder how much they are for the target audience of this magazine? I would assume that most of the readers are shooting film and have a limited interest in the new equipment market. Sure, there are exceptions, Voightlander and Zeiss lenses are always going to be welcome items but compact digicams and Tamron 18-250 lenses?

It's a shame it has gone so downhill. Does the new editor have any background in photography at all?
 
Probably some market research told them that people didn't buy the magazine because it was too advanced and they are more interested in basic "how to take pictures" advice.

As a result we now have an article in the latest edition about how to shoot animals in a farmyard, illustrated with unremarkable pictures. The last 2 issues have been very disappointing.
 
I bought every issue up to about 3 months ago - around the time of the change of editor. I will not be bothering again (apart from the od scan-read in WH Smith) until it picks up.

The only things worth reading now are the Printers Art and any reviews by Frances or Roger. I know one of the contributors to Printers Art, Leon, and I notice that he has not had a look-in since the new ed came into power. I actually could not believe he had the gall to print his own "review" of the MP - it added absolutely nothing new to the sum of human knowledge.

One other thing really gets me - the new section by that Geordie twit (Les McClean) that is supposed to answer our darkroom questions - I personally find it does anything but! Add to that the recent poor production quality, and it just don't insipre like it used to.

I will probably sell my back issues too - anyone want a complete set?
 
Nick, thanks for pointing me Privatephotoreview. Have ordered some numbers to see what it is like, it looks interesting. Foto8 known to me, had a subscription for a long time. Will keep an eye on them as well; really liked it and regret not having all numbers, maybe I should order backissues to make the collection complete ?

What I really liked about the old B&W was the nice mix of film/equipment reviews (and most of the time stuff that was never reviewed in such depth as in other mags) and interviews with photographers, that in combination with showing a lot of pictures.

It now spends a lot more space on digital, which we maybe have to accept as the times are changing and it is at least digital B&W. I also had the feeling that the level of the articles dropped, meaning that they are more oriented towards beginners and that I think is a mistake. Beginning photographers nowadays 9 out of 10 times shoot digital so they are probably not people that are interested in something that I still consider an "analog" magazine.

Kind of liked the quirky/whimsical (not a native speaker, so maybe not using the right words) feeling Ailsa (previous editor) gave to the mag. There were more female contributors during that period and I think that gave the magazine a more feminine touch; less focus on nitty gritty technical details, more focus on the process of taking pictures. Maybe even more philosophical, but without avoiding technical discussions. Her mix was perfect in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I read part of the thread on Apug (thanks for the pointer Schlapp) and the current editor is at least listening to the criticism. What more can we ask for ? I hope it finds a new direction as - in its kind - it really is the only halfway decent magazine around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom