Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is from one of my AP columns last year. I'd say it's 'about images'... I've abridged it slightly, or it would be an even longer post.
Babies drool. Spotty adolescent pop stars commonly stare vacantly into the distance with their mouths open. This is hardly breaking news. So why do so many people want to document such scenes?
Give me fantasy every time. I want pretty girls to look pretty, babies to look adorable, children to look carefree and happy. There's enough misery and sorrow in the world without adding to it via our photography.
Of course there are exceptions. If British police start laying into defenceless demonstrators, or indeed passers-by, with batons, that's news. If Chinese police kick and beat bound Tibetan monks, it is not entirely unexpected, but the world needs to be reminded of it. We do not, on the other hand, need to be reminded of drooling babies or vacant adolescents.
[para deleted]
Part of the urge to photograph drool and unpleasantness is the realization, which comes to most of us when we first become half-competent at photography, that photography doesn't have to be twee idealization; we don't have to document only the good side of life, photograph only attractive places, make portraits only of pretty girls and good-looking men. How many of us, especially in our youth, have not photographed down-and-outs, drunks barely conscious, stinking old tramps?
But don't we owe it to those down-and-outs, drunks and tramps to preserve, or even enhance, what little dignity they have? Otherwise, are we not kicking them while they're down, adding to their degradation and misery?
Again, there can be exceptions. We can try to hold these people up as an Awful Warning, so that others do not slide down the same path of degradation. Hold on a moment, though. One possibility is that they are actually happy the way they are. This is not outstandingly likely, but it is not impossible. If they are happy, even if only fleetingly, even if not completely, do we not owe it to them to portray their happiness in the same loving detail as we photograph their misery? When I say 'loving detail', you know what I mean: grainy, pushed Ilford HP5 Plus, properly wet-printed on Multigrade Warmtone. If we're going to exercise that degree of photographic expertise, shouldn't we think about how, and why, and for whose benefit?
Another (and rather likelier) possibility is that they are not happy. Then again, few people are either completely happy all the time, or completely unhappy all the time. As the Buddha himself put it, all sentient beings desire happiness and the causes of happiness, and to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering. Happiness, in this context, may be a few minutes' human interaction with the photographer; maybe even a few hours. It may be the temporary oblivion that comes from a bottle of cheap cider, perhaps paid for by the photographer. And it may be the knowledge that the right photograph, in the right place, may save someone else from their misery; in which case, they may well suggest pictures that show their dignity and occasional happiness on one side, and their misery on the other. That will be a far more effective Awful Warning.
Nowadays, I very rarely photograph down-and-outs and beggars. I have too much of a sense of there, but for fortune, go you, go I. But whether I photograph them or not, I try to give them a pound, or a euro, or a dollar, depending on where I am, and instead of dropping the money in the cup in an embarrassed sort of way and hurrying past, I try to smile, and exchange a word or two, and generally to treat them like an equal who's down on his luck. There, but for fortune... Maybe some see it as patronizing. Gratifyingly many don't.
[last couple of paras cut]
Babies drool. Spotty adolescent pop stars commonly stare vacantly into the distance with their mouths open. This is hardly breaking news. So why do so many people want to document such scenes?
Give me fantasy every time. I want pretty girls to look pretty, babies to look adorable, children to look carefree and happy. There's enough misery and sorrow in the world without adding to it via our photography.
Of course there are exceptions. If British police start laying into defenceless demonstrators, or indeed passers-by, with batons, that's news. If Chinese police kick and beat bound Tibetan monks, it is not entirely unexpected, but the world needs to be reminded of it. We do not, on the other hand, need to be reminded of drooling babies or vacant adolescents.
[para deleted]
Part of the urge to photograph drool and unpleasantness is the realization, which comes to most of us when we first become half-competent at photography, that photography doesn't have to be twee idealization; we don't have to document only the good side of life, photograph only attractive places, make portraits only of pretty girls and good-looking men. How many of us, especially in our youth, have not photographed down-and-outs, drunks barely conscious, stinking old tramps?
But don't we owe it to those down-and-outs, drunks and tramps to preserve, or even enhance, what little dignity they have? Otherwise, are we not kicking them while they're down, adding to their degradation and misery?
Again, there can be exceptions. We can try to hold these people up as an Awful Warning, so that others do not slide down the same path of degradation. Hold on a moment, though. One possibility is that they are actually happy the way they are. This is not outstandingly likely, but it is not impossible. If they are happy, even if only fleetingly, even if not completely, do we not owe it to them to portray their happiness in the same loving detail as we photograph their misery? When I say 'loving detail', you know what I mean: grainy, pushed Ilford HP5 Plus, properly wet-printed on Multigrade Warmtone. If we're going to exercise that degree of photographic expertise, shouldn't we think about how, and why, and for whose benefit?
Another (and rather likelier) possibility is that they are not happy. Then again, few people are either completely happy all the time, or completely unhappy all the time. As the Buddha himself put it, all sentient beings desire happiness and the causes of happiness, and to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering. Happiness, in this context, may be a few minutes' human interaction with the photographer; maybe even a few hours. It may be the temporary oblivion that comes from a bottle of cheap cider, perhaps paid for by the photographer. And it may be the knowledge that the right photograph, in the right place, may save someone else from their misery; in which case, they may well suggest pictures that show their dignity and occasional happiness on one side, and their misery on the other. That will be a far more effective Awful Warning.
Nowadays, I very rarely photograph down-and-outs and beggars. I have too much of a sense of there, but for fortune, go you, go I. But whether I photograph them or not, I try to give them a pound, or a euro, or a dollar, depending on where I am, and instead of dropping the money in the cup in an embarrassed sort of way and hurrying past, I try to smile, and exchange a word or two, and generally to treat them like an equal who's down on his luck. There, but for fortune... Maybe some see it as patronizing. Gratifyingly many don't.
[last couple of paras cut]
Last edited:
Squonk
Established
In 1999, when I revived my interest in photography, I bought about every magazine I could lay my hands on. English (AP, Popular Photography, Photography Monthly, B&W, Outdoor, ...), German (fotoMAGAZIN, Color Foto), French (Chasseur d'images, Réponses Photo) and Dutch (Focus, ...). I learned a great deal from reading them.
But obviously, the more I learned, the more I started reading the same stuff all over again. That, combined with the fact that indeed the quality of several of the magazines went down over time, and that ever more useful information becomes available online, made me buy ever fewer of them.
This year I even stopped buying AP after getting it every week for 10 years. The only one I still buy systematically is the French mag Réponses Photo. I like its good mix of technique, portfolios and material reviews. And above all, it's a magazine made by photographers for photographers. They know what they are talking about and practice it themselves. You can feel this love for photography, which is rarely the case in most other mags I have read. I heartily recommend it if you read French and have access to it.
For the others, I just buy an issue whenever the content seems sufficiently compelling.
But obviously, the more I learned, the more I started reading the same stuff all over again. That, combined with the fact that indeed the quality of several of the magazines went down over time, and that ever more useful information becomes available online, made me buy ever fewer of them.
This year I even stopped buying AP after getting it every week for 10 years. The only one I still buy systematically is the French mag Réponses Photo. I like its good mix of technique, portfolios and material reviews. And above all, it's a magazine made by photographers for photographers. They know what they are talking about and practice it themselves. You can feel this love for photography, which is rarely the case in most other mags I have read. I heartily recommend it if you read French and have access to it.
For the others, I just buy an issue whenever the content seems sufficiently compelling.
ashrafazlan
Established
I don't even bother with photography magazines anymore, how could I when every other issue discusses HDR tonemapping. If I want to look at good pictures, I buy NatGeo 
peter_n
Veteran
nathanp
Established
I find exactly the same thing as Dave with UK magazines. Supermarkets & newsagents are full of similar publications - Digital SLR, What Digital SLR, Digital Photography etc etc. As Dave said they're all full of pictures of purple/orange seascapes. I still buy Amateur Photographer and Black & White Photography from time to time but have given up on the rest.
Jarle Aasland
Nikon SP/S2, Fuji X100
Agreed. My feelings exactly.
Jarle
Jarle
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
B&W
Responses Photo
LensWorks and
Please do Try this one
http://www.polkamagazine.com/
Number one in here
Other edition here.
Once I read an article in Responses Photos from Jean-Cristophe Béchet saying like everything in life when we see to much of the same thing (be it photography, cinema, painting or other form of expression) we became more and more critique and things that are beautiful to others (the not enlighten...) and make them happy are just Banal for us (the enlighten )... he exemplified with photography books that sell (people like them) and books that just don't sell (critics like them..), this magazine situation could be just the same case...
Responses Photo
LensWorks and
Please do Try this one
http://www.polkamagazine.com/
Number one in here
Other edition here.
Once I read an article in Responses Photos from Jean-Cristophe Béchet saying like everything in life when we see to much of the same thing (be it photography, cinema, painting or other form of expression) we became more and more critique and things that are beautiful to others (the not enlighten...) and make them happy are just Banal for us (the enlighten )... he exemplified with photography books that sell (people like them) and books that just don't sell (critics like them..), this magazine situation could be just the same case...
Ade-oh
Well-known
There are plenty of magazines with good and interesting photography in them, but they aren't photography magazines, by and large.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Roland,
First of all, I'm glad you liked it.
The point about photo magazines was that this was one of my back page pieces, in a photo magazine, and it's about taking pictures; about thinking about why we take them, and what sort of pictures you take.
In other words, I don't think that all photo magazines dodge articles that are supposed to make people think. It's a direct reference to posts 38/39: I chose an article that is very much (to me) about images.
Cheers,
R.
First of all, I'm glad you liked it.
The point about photo magazines was that this was one of my back page pieces, in a photo magazine, and it's about taking pictures; about thinking about why we take them, and what sort of pictures you take.
In other words, I don't think that all photo magazines dodge articles that are supposed to make people think. It's a direct reference to posts 38/39: I chose an article that is very much (to me) about images.
Cheers,
R.
NDAv
Member
When you say you find digital photography uninteresting, I hope you are referring strictly to the articles about camera gear and not the actual photographs within the magazines, because I don't see any fundamental difference between film and digital photography when it comes to actual images. Why does it matter what kind of camera or process was used to make a photograph? If it is a good photograph then I can appreciate it no matter what.
The magazines I read (B&W and Color) have almost a singular focus on film photography, and even though I work exclusively with digital and have no experience with film, I still enjoy these magazines a lot... they hardly discuss camera gear at all, let alone digital camera gear, and I like that. I am sick of any discussion of camera gear, which is why I came to this site in hopes of less a gear-headed discussion of photography (I use rangefinder-styled camera, but not an actual rangefinder), but perhaps I came to the wrong place.
literiter
Well-known
I think there used to be a publication in the 1980s called "Darkroom Magazine" it had many interesting articles on alternative processes as well conversations with photographers.
Does anyone remember? I search for this on the net I get something about Adobe Photoshop.
Does anyone remember? I search for this on the net I get something about Adobe Photoshop.
Graham Line
Well-known
Darkroom & Creative Camera (I think it was) disappeared a few years ago. Photo Techniques is still in existence and was just redesigned. Some film, some digital, some ads. Large, well-stocked newsstands in my area sell it.
The web is nice but I miss well-edited publications introducing new ideas.
Amateur Photographer in the UK does a nice job given its small staff and weekly production schedule.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Dave,
That's why I have given up on several magazine subscriptions...for now I get View Camera and B&W Magazine (US version)...
That's why I have given up on several magazine subscriptions...for now I get View Camera and B&W Magazine (US version)...
reuno
Log out, go shoot.
In france reponses photo is a nice mag, well balanced between gear and photography with nice critiques from readers pics and "workshop" about shooting pictures or bw labo. I wait for them to come in the mail box each month ! The other mag, Chasseurs d'image is too much about gear and shooting macro and boring telezoom pictures. Don't like them. Polka, a "new" mag about photojournalism and portfolios is nice too, very qualitative.
yanidel
Well-known
Overall, I find the quality of photo magazines in France to be excellent, and not as full of ads as UK or US the US ones. Especially high note to Polka magazine which focuses on photojournalism, absolutely wonderful.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Untill a few month ago I was travelling 3-4 days a week because of my job. In that case I used to buy photo magazines, just to spend the night not in front on television. But most of time I was un-satisifed and so I switch to fashion magazines (my wife very happy), some travel magazine (National Geographic) to look at reportages or art magazines if looking for "fantasie". Now I do not travel so much (retired) and I calculate that each 4-5 magazines cost the same amount of a good book. That is my choce now, with exceptiopn for LFI and Fine Art Printer which I read also in order to practice my mediocre german.
robert
robert
Lilserenity
Well-known
I find them all to be a complete pile of dross on the whole with the exception of AP, and on the odd occasion Black and White (UK) is OK -- it was my go to magazine, it concentrated on pictures and that is what I liked. Now it's reviews of RAID controllers and metatags and the same DSLR review each month but with the name searched and replaced out. A terrific shame. I might still pick it up now and then but I've not bought the last 2-3 issues.
I'm not even particularly blaming this on digital really, it's as others have said the reality is making something, a print magazine, survive in the Internet age, and that's by being populist and mainstream with adverts and a pretty formulaic approach.
These days I find myself rooting around Flickr more and more and discover gems in there, bookshops too in Brighton unearth some gems time to time in the North Laine.
As for purple skies, sorry: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4269900888/in/set-72157618590943732/ ! But that's how Provia rendered it and it was a stunningly good sunset that night!
But yes, I steer well clear of anything that is called "Digital SLR Pro Monthly Magazine HDR Pro Digi DSLR Bumper Mag SLR Buy Me Professional" -- not because of the digital bit, but because I know it'll be a computer magazine essentially, and I have zero interest in reading about data transfer rates between a RAID array or the speed of the new Sandist Super Compact Flash things.
Photography for me is about the pictures, the equipment second. But I know everyone is different.
Vicky
I'm not even particularly blaming this on digital really, it's as others have said the reality is making something, a print magazine, survive in the Internet age, and that's by being populist and mainstream with adverts and a pretty formulaic approach.
These days I find myself rooting around Flickr more and more and discover gems in there, bookshops too in Brighton unearth some gems time to time in the North Laine.
As for purple skies, sorry: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4269900888/in/set-72157618590943732/ ! But that's how Provia rendered it and it was a stunningly good sunset that night!
But yes, I steer well clear of anything that is called "Digital SLR Pro Monthly Magazine HDR Pro Digi DSLR Bumper Mag SLR Buy Me Professional" -- not because of the digital bit, but because I know it'll be a computer magazine essentially, and I have zero interest in reading about data transfer rates between a RAID array or the speed of the new Sandist Super Compact Flash things.
Photography for me is about the pictures, the equipment second. But I know everyone is different.
Vicky
cs_foto
Member
Amazing quote!
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
You keep mentioning RAID!.....well - I like the guy!
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Having recently moved from the UK to the US, one thing which amazes me is the low subscription rates for magazines.
National Geographic, American Photo, Shutterbug, B&W etc. have yearly subscriptions in the $5-$15 range.
At those prices, a lot of mediocrity padding snippets of good work is perfectly acceptable.
National Geographic, American Photo, Shutterbug, B&W etc. have yearly subscriptions in the $5-$15 range.
At those prices, a lot of mediocrity padding snippets of good work is perfectly acceptable.