Somewhat OT: Pop Photo Reader Survey

[ch1]

About six months ago, after not having read it for a long, long time - I picked up a copy of and then subscribed to Pop Photo.

Now I understand that the digital camera industry "feeds" these folks. And, although I still do prefer film in most instances, I own both a Nikon D-70 and D-100 as well as a Canon G1 - so I'm not totally anti-digital by any means

However, between this rag's approach that I apparently must trash my digital every month the for the new "latest" wonder-gadget and their flat out "anti-film" and "film is dead" bias I have already decided to let my subscription lapse when it expires.

So guess what? Yesterday I get a letter from them indicating that I have been chosen to partake in a Reader Survey and to be on the look out for it soon!

Boy are they in for it! 😀

 

[FrankS]

Excellent, George. Let them have it! This magazine, or the 2 that merged to form it, were the ones I tired of first, back when I was still buying photo mags. Shutterbug lasted the longest. If I bought magazines now, it would be the British B+W one, and perhaps lenswork.

 

[d30gaijin]

George,

I too received a letter about being selected to participate in the survey. I agree with you re: their attitude and shoving the latest digi stuff down our collective throats, punctuated by nonsense such as, "So you want to be a paparazzi" or a “Sports Shooter” and other such banal garbage. You can bet I’ll be letting them know just how I feel, and I think my feelings run parallel to yours.

Don

 

[ray_g]

The only articles I liked in Pop Photo were the Photoshop tips by Debbie Drossman (sp?) and the occasional article by Bryan Peterson. Otherwise, the mag was in the trash after one read in the bathroom. :bang:

And if you'd care to read it, pretty much everything is availble for free on the Pop photo (same is true for shutterbug) website.

 

[FrankS]

In the end, the only thing keeping me going with shutterbug was the vintage camera column.

 

[yossarian]

It's karma, George. I stay with Pop because it's cheap and my ancestors were Scots.

Fred

"In price, prudence predominates"--Morrison family slogan

 

[ch1]

It's karma, George. I stay with Pop because it's cheap and my ancestors were Scots.

Fred

"In price, prudence predominates"--Morrison family slogan

Yes, but remember, the B&H and Adorama catalogs are even cheaper - FREE.

Can't get any lower than that!

Oh, sorry, is there any other reason for getting Pop Fart? 😀

 

[SolaresLarrave]

In defense of PopPhoto... they DO pay attention to their readers' input. Besides, the articles like "do you want to be a paparazzi" and others are, let's admit it, informative. They won't tell you how to become this kind of shooter, but actually tell you what these photographers do for a living.

Now... if the antifilm bias bothers you, try Herbert Kepler's column. True, sometimes it's good, sometimes not, but then, this magazine still has its moments, like Debby Grossman's articles and Peter Kolonia's ocassional pieces. Not all is lost yet...

 

[amateriat]

Maybe it's a matter of my age, but I ditched most of the "mainstream" photo mags in the late 80s/early 90s - not much to tell me that I didn't already know, and they were mostly hardware pushers - only now it's digital-digital-digital, and the "volume" is just louder. The fact that they're about the only mainstream mag left (stateside) should be telling.

- Barrett

 

[ch1]

Maybe it's a matter of my age, but I ditched most of the "mainstream" photo mags in the late 80s/early 90s - not much to tell me that I didn't already know, and they were mostly hardware pushers - only now it's digital-digital-digital, and the "volume" is just louder. The fact that they're about the only mainstream mag left (stateside) should be telling.

- Barrett

With these mags it's always a yin-yang thing about "leading their readers" or "following them".

Truth be told, the damned subscription price was so cheap versus the newstand single-buy that I sent in the card w/o really knowing what a rag PopPhoto had become.

Debbie Grossman's articles are interesting - but I can buy a "Dummies" book to show me the same things.

The paltry "Film" column (although this month they re-named it the "SLR" column) is but a sop. All the rest of the "editorial" content is very anti-film. This month they even claimed that Sweden's rivers are cleaner because there is a reduced silver oxide component in the water with the switch to digital cameras. [But, did they check Sweden's landfills (or China's) for the ground pollution caused by discarded digital detritus?]

My bottom line is that given what I am interested in - they are not meeting my needs. So I don't need them and will let them know that.

Also, their most recent "best photo of the year" winner was so over the top Photoshopped that even they had to print negative letters to the editor about it. As one letter writer noted - it was no longer a photo - it was totally manipulated, albeit very fine, "digital art".

PP is a publication in search of a death. I hope I can help them get there!

 

[DougK]

Occasionally Pop Photo has good articles but for the most part I don't bother with it very often anymore. I'm much more interested in seeing other people's work than their gear... I have enough cameras around here as it is. :bang:

 

[Bobbo]

I just let my subscription lapse after five years...I got sick of what people like Herb Kepler telling everyone what is good and what isn't in their unmarked avertisements called columns.

I get Rangefinder for free and Press Photographer with my NPPA membership. That's it. I can find everything else online, especially news that isn't three months old.

Have a nice night,
Bob Clark

 

[Taipei-metro]

In defense of PopPhoto... they DO pay attention to their readers' input. Besides, the articles like "do you want to be a paparazzi" and others are, let's admit it, informative. They won't tell you how to become this kind of shooter, but actually tell you what these photographers do for a living.

Now... if the antifilm bias bothers you, try Herbert Kepler's column. True, sometimes it's good, sometimes not, but then, this magazine still has its moments, like Debby Grossman's articles and Peter Kolonia's ocassional pieces. Not all is lost yet...

Let's see what I got from Asahi Kamera Feb,2006 issue.
16 photographers' works. No printed words on the photos but a small line for equipment data. W.discussion on later pages.
14 pages report on ZF 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and ZMM 50/1.4, 85 1.4 comparing w Nikkor AiAF D 50mm 1.4, AiAF85mm 1.4D. also the ZF 85 on D200, and 50/1.4 ZS on 5D.
Nikon D200 v.F100. Test report on new Mamiya ZD(36X48mm, 21.3 MP).
The ZD vs Canon Eos 1ds M-II.
How about prime 1.4s for digital? Test report on Sigma 30 1.4 vs. Canon 50 1.4 vs. Nikon Af-D 28 1.4 vs Canon 35 1.4 USM.
Two D-Zuiko lens reviews, 35mm 3.5 macro and 90-250 2.8. It' only at page 169.(380 pages total)
12 pages test-review on ZI RF camera and ZIM 28 2.8, 50 f2 lens tests complete w MTF, resolution power...
42 pages of monthly winning photo contest from readers.
Following the camera reviews, editors discussions w the designers.
And many many more...
I read Petersen's, Outdoor(Photography?) in US, now these two are even worse.
Strangely, Popular called themself "Largest" imaging mag? Grossman, Resnic, really awful, another guy, Bob Chris(?) on traveling photography? terrible!
But of course they are CHEAP, as low as $6 a year( don't renew right away, they'll send you the $6 offer), 12 issues! and shipped to your home. Their American Photo is another awful mag. Interviewing Julia Roberts because she played a photographer in...what movie?
Pop photo is best for checking B&H gear prices...

 

[ch1]

Yeah..

The best and worst I can tell them is that they are a very successul AD-RAG.

Nothing more than that.

I can get ads up the wazoo from the websites

Heck, they have "how-to" info on B&H's website (and others too) so why do I need an ad-rag like PopPhoto?

Enough - with them and with posting on this thread!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I agree with George. I remember picking this up after I picked up my first real camera and thinking that it would be informative. I really didn't think it would be a bunch of digital garbage...and it was. Now I go into Barnes & Noble and read B&W. Planning to buy my first copy either this weekend or next. Also thinking about subscribing.

 

[parks5920]

I love it! Where else can you learn how to shoot NFL football games and rock stars? Pop photo rules.................did I mention that they published a picture of my kid and threw me some $$$! Long live Pop Photo!

 

[RJBender]

With these mags it's always a yin-yang thing about "leading their readers" or "following them".

Truth be told, the damned subscription price was so cheap versus the newstand single-buy that I sent in the card w/o really knowing what a rag PopPhoto had become.

Debbie Grossman's articles are interesting - but I can buy a "Dummies" book to show me the same things.

The paltry "Film" column (although this month they re-named it the "SLR" column) is but a sop. All the rest of the "editorial" content is very anti-film. This month they even claimed that Sweden's rivers are cleaner because there is a reduced silver oxide component in the water with the switch to digital cameras. [But, did they check Sweden's landfills (or China's) for the ground pollution caused by discarded digital detritus?]

My bottom line is that given what I am interested in - they are not meeting my needs. So I don't need them and will let them know that.

Also, their most recent "best photo of the year" winner was so over the top Photoshopped that even they had to print negative letters to the editor about it. As one letter writer noted - it was no longer a photo - it was totally manipulated, albeit very fine, "digital art".

PP is a publication in search of a death. I hope I can help them get there!

George,
So the Swedes must have been dumping their darkroom chemicals into their rivers and streams? Were there any ads for Hasselblad in that issue?

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Let's see what I got from Asahi Kamera Feb,2006 issue.
16 photographers' works. No printed words on the photos but a small line for equipment data. W.discussion on later pages.
14 pages report on ZF 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and ZMM 50/1.4, 85 1.4 comparing w Nikkor AiAF D 50mm 1.4, AiAF85mm 1.4D. also the ZF 85 on D200, and 50/1.4 ZS on 5D. Nikon D200 v.F100. Test report on new Mamiya ZD(36X48mm, 21.3 MP).
The ZD vs Canon Eos 1ds M-II.
How about prime 1.4s for digital? Test report on Sigma 30 1.4 vs. Canon 50 1.4 vs. Nikon Af-D 28 1.4 vs Canon 35 1.4 USM.
Two D-Zuiko lens reviews, 35mm 3.5 macro and 90-250 2.8. It' only at page 169.(380 pages total)
12 pages test-review on ZI RF camera and ZIM 28 2.8, 50 f2 lens tests complete w MTF, resolution power...42 pages of monthly winning photo contest from readers.
Following the camera reviews, editors discussions w the designers.
And many many more...
I read Petersen's, Outdoor(Photography?) in US, now these two are even worse.
Strangely, Popular called themself "Largest" imaging mag? Grossman, Resnic, really awful, another guy, Bob Chris(?) on traveling photography? terrible!
But of course they are CHEAP, as low as $6 a year( don't renew right away, they'll send you the $6 offer), 12 issues! and shipped to your home. Their American Photo is another awful mag. Interviewing Julia Roberts because she played a photographer in...what movie?
Pop photo is best for checking B&H gear prices...

Please post a summary of their comments on the Zeiss forum.

R.J.

 

[parks5920]

Back cover! 😀

George,
So the Swedes must have been dumping their darkroom chemicals into their rivers and streams? Were there any ads for Hasselblad in that issue?

R.J.

 

[oftheherd]

I guess I hang on to PP&I for a couple of reasons. It and Shutterbug are the last two US magazines. I have been reading it for over thirty years, and my father before me. I do sometimes like their BB, but it is getting less and less interesting.

I do deplore their bias towards digital, but then I deplore the worlds bias towards digital (even as I join it after a fasion). They do still talk some about film, but not as much as I would wish. Even Kepler gave a boost to digital with his most recent left handed shot for film. They have had a bias towards gagets for years.

But, so far they continue to sell. There must be something there people like. I know I really enjoyed Modern, Pop, and Petersons 30 years ago when I got back into photography. There was much of interest to a newbie which I essentially was. I wonder if that is still true.