Nh3
Well-known
Rangefinder is a free (by subscription) monthly magazine, which I receive here in Toronto. Unfortunately all this time that I have been getting this glorified brochure of photography-related advertisements I have yet to see a single article about a rangefinder camera. Not only that, I have yet to see a proper article in the magazine, most of the articles are promotion of a product or a photographer under the guise of a 'review' or photographer profile.
The worst part about this magazine is the sheer nauseating amount of cheesy ads. From the typical denim wearing camera-toting male models to silly bimbos posing for stupid portraits to the over-processed landscape shots advertising some piece of equipment to close-ups of jewelry and every conceivable array of visually tiring rubbish... And of course there is the thick freaking piece of cardboard right in the middle of the magazine pushing some printing lap which automatically opens the magazine in that page so you can see it and it makes it a pain to browse through the other pages, and once when i tried to rip it off it tore two other pages with it as well, its glued with some industrial-strength adhesive.
... And the most annoying aspect of these photography-related advertisements is that they’re trying to sell the image of a photographer more than anything else. They have somehow managed to make people with ridiculously long zooms and big cameras look cool and convince anyone with penis-envy (or equivalent) to buy the longest zooms they can and be a "photographer".
Then there is advertisement for overpriced camera bags, and many other assortment of useless and unnecessary garbage pushed at the glib amateur and overzealous pro. Even the Leica owners are guilty of paying $200 for cow-skin cases for their Leicas, what the heck for?
Sometimes as a photographer one feels like a fool who everyone wants to sell something for a higher price and something which one does not really need. For example the other day I almost bought a Nikon F5, not because I needed it, just because I wanted to own a Nikon F5 and show it off to people and feel good about it. It did not matter that I might never use it but I just wanted own it, how stupid is that?
The sad reality is that photography has turned into an industry and billions are spent to make people become photographers. Whether this will help photography as an art or tool for social change I don't really know, because anyone who falls for these cheesy ads, certainly hold no promise of intellectual prowess or artistic ability.
The worst part about this magazine is the sheer nauseating amount of cheesy ads. From the typical denim wearing camera-toting male models to silly bimbos posing for stupid portraits to the over-processed landscape shots advertising some piece of equipment to close-ups of jewelry and every conceivable array of visually tiring rubbish... And of course there is the thick freaking piece of cardboard right in the middle of the magazine pushing some printing lap which automatically opens the magazine in that page so you can see it and it makes it a pain to browse through the other pages, and once when i tried to rip it off it tore two other pages with it as well, its glued with some industrial-strength adhesive.
... And the most annoying aspect of these photography-related advertisements is that they’re trying to sell the image of a photographer more than anything else. They have somehow managed to make people with ridiculously long zooms and big cameras look cool and convince anyone with penis-envy (or equivalent) to buy the longest zooms they can and be a "photographer".
Then there is advertisement for overpriced camera bags, and many other assortment of useless and unnecessary garbage pushed at the glib amateur and overzealous pro. Even the Leica owners are guilty of paying $200 for cow-skin cases for their Leicas, what the heck for?
Sometimes as a photographer one feels like a fool who everyone wants to sell something for a higher price and something which one does not really need. For example the other day I almost bought a Nikon F5, not because I needed it, just because I wanted to own a Nikon F5 and show it off to people and feel good about it. It did not matter that I might never use it but I just wanted own it, how stupid is that?
The sad reality is that photography has turned into an industry and billions are spent to make people become photographers. Whether this will help photography as an art or tool for social change I don't really know, because anyone who falls for these cheesy ads, certainly hold no promise of intellectual prowess or artistic ability.
FrankS
Registered User
Yeah, that "Rangefinder" "magazine" was a huge disappointment!
Nh3
Well-known
That magazine was used as an example before i go to my main rant about advertisement overload related to photography.
Its always better to read the whole post before commenting.
Ororaro
Well-known
Actually, the fact that it's free is even worst because it propagates much faster, more directly, without boundaries. How many people wouldn't be exposed at those stupid ads if they had to pay for them? That is the real problem.
lZr
L&M
There is a big advantage reading this magazine -> You know what you don't like. By elimination you can get to the point
Ororaro
Well-known
Or are you one of those people who actually believe advertisements?
You are now trying to redirect this discussion to irrelevancy and I will obviously not follow. I said what I had to say on the free magazine.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Let me get this clear.
This is a 'free' magazine, i.e. the readers don't pay for it. Clearly, the advertisers do.
The reader therefore gets what the advertiser pays for. Surprise! Surprise! Advertisers also subsidize paid-for magazines: a magazine with a cover price of (say) $3.95 would probably cost $10 at least without the advertising. FOAM, the Dutch magazine with very little advertising and very high production values, is close to $20 a copy.
'Free' is the dominant internet model -- and generally, you get what you pay for. This is why some sites are subscription-only; some rely on voluntary payments; and some (like www.rogerandfrances.com) provide a lot of free material in the hope of getting subscriptions as well.
So what exactly is the complaint? That a lot of photo ads are tacky? Gosh: how utterly unlike every other branch of advertising. That magazines don't cost enough because they are subsidized by advertisers?
No-one has to subscribe to anything -- free, subsidized or full price. Personally I'm grateful that advertisers do subsidize some magazines (and sites) and I'll put up with the tacky ads. Too many ads, and it becomes too much of a waste of time or money or both, and I don't bother. Too few, and I can't/won't pay for the publication.
So I'll repeat: you get what you pay for.
Cheers,
Roger
This is a 'free' magazine, i.e. the readers don't pay for it. Clearly, the advertisers do.
The reader therefore gets what the advertiser pays for. Surprise! Surprise! Advertisers also subsidize paid-for magazines: a magazine with a cover price of (say) $3.95 would probably cost $10 at least without the advertising. FOAM, the Dutch magazine with very little advertising and very high production values, is close to $20 a copy.
'Free' is the dominant internet model -- and generally, you get what you pay for. This is why some sites are subscription-only; some rely on voluntary payments; and some (like www.rogerandfrances.com) provide a lot of free material in the hope of getting subscriptions as well.
So what exactly is the complaint? That a lot of photo ads are tacky? Gosh: how utterly unlike every other branch of advertising. That magazines don't cost enough because they are subsidized by advertisers?
No-one has to subscribe to anything -- free, subsidized or full price. Personally I'm grateful that advertisers do subsidize some magazines (and sites) and I'll put up with the tacky ads. Too many ads, and it becomes too much of a waste of time or money or both, and I don't bother. Too few, and I can't/won't pay for the publication.
So I'll repeat: you get what you pay for.
Cheers,
Roger
tripod
Well-known
By calling itself Rangefinder Magazine, it raised a lot of our hopes and expectations, toying with our emotions.
gb hill
Veteran
If you subscribed to Rangefinder mag. thinking it was about rangefinder cameras then yea! I can see your dissapointment. I just got the new issue in my mailbox Wed. & I like the magazine. I like reading how photographers got there start, delving into there minds, gaining insight on techniques. The ad's I assume is what makes the magazine free to me, but there are other mags out there you can subscribe to since this one doesn't tickle your fancy. Black & White (UK) is a great mag but here in the States it's oround $10.00 an issue.
Ducky
Well-known
Marketing is a fact of life. Everybody has bought something based on, or starting with, an advertisement. Seems silly to b**ch about it.
Besides, IMHO, anyone who spends 5K on a camera and 3K on a lens has proven the value of marketing.
Besides, IMHO, anyone who spends 5K on a camera and 3K on a lens has proven the value of marketing.
aizan
Veteran
ditto on the british black & white.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
BillP
Rangefinder General
Nh3, welcome to the 21st century. Advertising is a fact of life. One of the best investments I have ever made is an HDD/DVD recorder. It automatically records 6 hours of whatever the TV is tuned to. It means that on the rare occasions that something comes on a commercial channel I want to watch, I can either "timeshift" the whole programme, or if I am around, I simply "pause live tv" and go and make a cup of tea at the first break. I don't rush, then I can zip forward through the adverts and still finish at the same time. By the same token I use Firefox and it's AdBlock feature freely. I hate the distraction of web adverts. When I buy a magazine in a shop, I always remove any bellybands and shake out any inserts. When I buy the Sunday Papers I extract and leave in the shop anything that doesn't interest me.
In other words I don't bitch about advertising, I do something about it. Suggest if it upsets you so much you do the same.
Regards,
Bill
In other words I don't bitch about advertising, I do something about it. Suggest if it upsets you so much you do the same.
Regards,
Bill
Ororaro
Well-known
Bill,
I don't know why you mention my name. I am not the one who started this thread and I am fully aware of how the 21st centtury and marketing works.
Maybe you will want to redirect your post to another person.
Regards
Ned
BillP
Rangefinder General
Ororaro
Well-known
No problemo
Gumby
Veteran
I had the same question. The "complainers" are complaining because they made an assumption that a mag named "Rangefinder" is oriented toward the hobbiest niche served by this forum. Guess what... the magazine has always purported to serve another demographic (WWW.RANGEFINDERMAG.COM):
"Welcome to Rangefinder
Rangefinder is the premier monthly magazine for the professional photographer. Each month Rangefinder typically includes:
— product and new equipment reviews
— lighting and technical pieces
— how-to’s
— promotion and marketing stories
— portraiture tips
— accessories and system round-ups
— computer technology
— black-and-white shooting
— lens reviews
— processing techniques
We hope you will enjoy Rangefinder."
Personally, I find it meets my needs quite well!
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
If I remember correctly, the magazine was once called The Rangefinder, and while I don't think it ever specialized in things RF-ish, it was always a pro-oriented magazine, and has been around for a while. As a consequence of being involved in various aspects of "the business" in the past (studio, lab), I read the magazine, but with the exception of a tiny handful of articles, I always thought the rag was a snoozer. Based on the last time I took a peek at it, I can't say it's improved, save as a somewhat telling barometer of the pro shooter's ongoing marginalization by legions of dSLR-slingers singing a chorus of "anything you can do, I can do better." But like any magazine, free or otherwise, I can take it or leave it. So, I "leave" Rangefinder, and put my money where my sensibilities lie (Camera Arts, LensWork, DoubleTake, among a few others). It's not like there aren't any good photography pubs around, even with the "Internets" as competition.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Last edited:
Nh3
Well-known
The fact is that your magazine is exploiting an endearing terminology in photography - rangefinder to sell products. You have the right to sell and advertise but not by hijacking existing terminology with a large follower base.
@ BillP:
Actually, I don't even have a TV and I don't subscribe to newspapers. And I already have sent an E-mail to get me off the subscription list for this magazine.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah... So you think that GQ is only for gentlemen, Playboy is only for playboys, Motorsport is only for racing drivers... And Rangefinder, presumably, is only for artillery officers.
Magazine editors choose titles that are eye-catching and more or less related to the topic. Sporting Life is mainly for gamblers, not sportsmen, but as the readers gamble on sport, it's close enough. Rangefinder is about photography (I seem to recall reading it 20 years ago, before the rangefinder renaissance).
And it's FREE! Do you really expect that someone who is giving you something for nothing is going to worry because it doesn't precisely fit your expectations? Or indeed, that they care anything like as much about a few picky readers' reactions as they do about their advertisers, who are, after all, keeping them in business?
Cheers,
R.