New "PhotoVision" Magazinegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
Here's a new bimonthly photo magazine "PhotoVision". Go here to see a few previous issues: http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/photovision_index_e.html
Has anyone seen them in the states? Any comments? Thanks,
-- Geoffrey CHen (DB45TEK@AOL.COM), April 17, 2001
Bought the issue with the space shuttle on the cover at the local bookstore here in Athens, OH, so it has made it to the states. How widespread distribution is, though, I couldn't say. I can't find the magazine at the moment, my desk being in a constant state of disarray, but if I recall correctly, I enjoyed the articles and would probably buy the magazine again if I ever remember to look for it.
-- David Munson (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 17, 2001.
I have the last 2 issues, # 3 and 4, and enjoyed both very much. Its available at Barnes and Noble where i live. each of the issues I've seen has has something of interest for Large Formatters. One thing sure to make some love it or hate it, they will not do articles on digital (a plus IMO, take it or leave it), its strictly "handmade" photography. According to the Editor, Steve Anchell, the magazine has been very well-received and subscriptions skyrocketed causing production delays after the 2nd issue. I hope it succeeds and I hope it continues to provide at least some LF content in most issues.
-- Wayne (email@example.com), April 17, 2001.
For Photovision dealers in the US:
-- Silvio Maraini (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 18, 2001.
I've subscribed since the first issue. I thought the first issue was kind of superficial but each issue since then has been good (IMHO of course), especially the current issue. I don't know how bright a future it has, since it isn't going to cover anything digital. That would seem to make it increasingly difficult to attract advertisers as more and more traditional companies go down the tubes or switch their emphasis to digital, but for now I'd definitely renew my subscription.
-- Brian Ellis (email@example.com), April 18, 2001.
I assume that is Anchell of The Film Developing Cookbook?
That would be good. I'll have to go look for it.
I for one, am tired of buying photography magazines that are increasingly full of useless (to me) digital reviews and articles! ;)
-- John H. Henderson (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 18, 2001.
To avoid any potential conflict of interest scandals, let me state upfront that I have written a review of the 5x7 Lotus that will run in the next issue (May/June 2001) of Photovision. Therefore, my opinion may be tinged with a bit of personal bias. Please keep that in mind when reading my comments below.
I think Photovision is a great new magazine that will appeal to a lot of large format photographers. Obviously, it's a perfect match for those practicing traditional printing methods. And although they have said they will not be covering digital capture and printing technology, many of the equipment reviews (cameras, lenses, tripods, etc.) are pretty universal. Also, they will feature the work of artists who create traditional prints from digitally enlarged negatives. I'm not sure if they plan do how-to articles on making digitally enlarged negatives.
I don't pretend to speak for Steve Anchell, or anyone else at Photovision, but when the news stand at my local Barnes & Noble is staturated with digital photo magazines, it's refreshing to see a publication dedicated to traditional methods (and this comes from someone who recently made all 18 his prints for an upcoming show using digital output - Lightjet). It would probably make Steve Anchell cringe (or perhaps laugh at the irony), but the last time I was in Barnes & Noble, Photovision was sandwiched between P.E.I. and Photoshop user - two fine publications, but both obviously "pro digital".
Again, my personal opinion and not speaking for anyone at Photovision, I think their focus on traditional methods makes a lot of sense for a new publication trying to gain readers. As I said, the news stand is already cluttered with digital photo publications, so not much sense trying to gain a foothold in an already saturated market. Plus, I think the focus of Photovision is more on the beauty of the actual images - something that is timeless. I'm not saying that digitally created images cannot be timless and beautiful, but the methods and equipment to create them are still evolving very rapidly. As such, it would be hard for a bi-monthly magazine like Photovision to keep up with all the latest developments. By the time they publish a review (a REAL review by someone who actually used the camera in their day-to-day work to create REAL images - not just a press release or re-hash of the manufacturers specs) of the latest digital camera/printer, it would likely be discontinued and replaced by and even "better" model. For example, when I reviewd the 5x7 Lotus for Photovision, I was allowed to use it for four months before I wrote my review. From the time I submitted my review until it hits the news stands, another three months will have passed. That's a seven month review cycle. I'm just guessing here based on what I've been seeing and what I know from my past experience in the computer business. The typical life span of most consumer (and "prosumer") digital cameras appears to be about six - eight months. So, the technology is changing faster than the review cycle for this publication. And I suspect the digital technology, in terms of input and output devices will continue to churn at a very rapid rate over the next several years. It will continue to get better, and the advancements will be bigger at first and will gradually taper off in their magnitude until the technology is much more mature.
In the meantime, it's nice to have a magazine that is dedicated to creating beautiful images and not just another "me-too" digital photo mag. I'm not personally "anti-digital" in any way, and think P.E.I. is a great resource for fine art digital printmaking, but it's nice to have some variety and I welcome any new magazine that features beautifully made images, regardless of the technology used to create them.
In addition to the subject matter, and the beautiful images, the quality of production is extremely high. As a contributer, I found Steve Anchell a pleasure to work with (I'm sure many of you will recognize his name from his past efforts), and I hope the magazine becomes a great success. There are many fair to poor photography magazines on the market (mostly aimed at the masses who shoot 35mm APS and consumer grade digital), but only a couple really good publications aimed at serious image making. I certainly think there is room at the top for another high quality magazine, and I think Photovision qualifies.
-- Kerry Thalmann (email@example.com), April 18, 2001.
I subscribed to Photovision in August 2000. Since I recieved the October 2000 issue almost six months ago I have not had any further correspondence from Photovision and gave them up for dead... This would indeed be a shame as their bias for the craft of traditional non-digital photography deserves all the exposure possible.
-- Mark Nowaczynski (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 18, 2001.
I like Photovision; it's a welcome addition to the shrinking selection of "good" photography magazines. I suppose I'll go ahead and subscribe; I waited to see if the mag would last for more than one or two issues.
The current issue is at Barnes & Noble and Borders in central Florida.
-- John Hicks (email@example.com), April 18, 2001.
So is Steve Anchell writing more articles like he used to for Camera & Darkroom magazine? I might seek this mag. out if it were anything like C&D. That's one magazine I really miss, having subscribed to it for jsut about it's entire span. I renewed my subscription and the mag. folded about 2 months later, they started sending me OP instead...which is a lousy substitute. There was talk that they would start another magazine, they even had a website up for awhile, but nothing ever happened. Is PhotoVision it?? In a way I felt sort of burned, the way C&D mag just abruptly stopped.
-- DK Thompson (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 19, 2001.
I didnt notice if Steve Anchell wrote any articles for the two issues I've seen. I hope he does write some though, instead of subjecting my eyes to things like the ad for his book, which showed several of his nudes. :-/
-- Wayne (email@example.com), April 19, 2001.
Mark: Calm down. Most photo mags these days show a decidedly 'anti-silver' bias, and you know that's true, but you're not jumping around about it because accusing a magazine of digital/film bias only works one way: If the magazine praises digital to the point of outright plagiarism of scarcely believable press releases, it's called "cutting edge." If any film user criticizes this, he's automatically insane, a dinosaur, a liar, and if that doesn't work, a curmudgeon (even if he's right). But, if a digital person criticizes a magazine for devoting too much space to film and darkroom, that critic is publicly hailed as a "progressive" voice for artistic freedom, tilting at the windmills of Luddite-style editorial oppression (even if he's wrong). Good God, what tripe. Can't we have one magazine for those of us who like traditional photography? It's becoming heresy to A)be unhappy with the quality of digital B) not spend even more money in ten months in hopes of overcoming it C) take pleasure in anything not computer-related D) dare suggest there's any merit to such a "burdensome, antiquated" process as darkroom work, and that it could be aesthetic and psychological as well as quality-related. Of course, to do the latter, you have to accept that something other than money and popular approval is important. . .
-- Josh Slocum (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 19, 2001.
MARK: I'm so sorry!!!!!! I should have read your post more carefully! Yikes, just shows how my temper gets flared up having to defend my sheet film all the time:(( I'm sorry my friend, for being an a**.
-- Josh Slocum (email@example.com), April 19, 2001.
Dear Josh, It is refreshing to see such passionate support for traditional wet photography. The digital explosion reminds me of Muzak, but nothing will ever replace Bach played on a Stradivarius. No digital technology will replace or improve on the work of the photographic giants whose images have long inspired us. Sheet film and silver gelatin prints have left us with the same legacy that the great violin makers (Amati, Guarneri, Stradivarius) did. I am forced to listen to these great instruments on compact discs, but I can still attend live recitals. Likewise, I could scan and display some of my platinum prints on a web site, but I would far rather offer live exhibits. And I feel only pity for those who look at a 16X20 platinum print and say that it can be done just as well and more easily and cheaply on the same paper using Photoshop and an inkjet printer. It's Bach versus the Back Street Boys... I applaud Photovision for having the class to ignore the morass of digital mediocrity. Regards from Toronto, Mark Nowaczynski
-- Mark Nowaczynski (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 19, 2001.
Well said, Mark! Wish I could attend more live recitals :-) Thanks all for the info and comments. -- GGC
-- Geoffrey Chen (DB45TEK@AOL.COM), April 19, 2001.
Goooooooooooo Joshhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! You were just gettin warmed up! I've been wanting to yell something like that for a long time. I feel better already
-- Wayne (email@example.com), April 20, 2001.
Thanks for mentioning this. I just picked up the latest issue, and I like it. I'd like it better if it were on slightly heavier, more opaque paper, but I guess that's how they keep the price down to $4.95, which is noticeably less than other publications in this market.
I also recently picked up the most recent issue of _Contact Sheet_ (no. 110), which has an excellent B&W portfolio of the interiors of old prisons, asylums, and immigration detention centers by Margaret Stratton. Info at www.lightwork.com.
-- David Goldfarb (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 21, 2001.
The new site for Photovision Magazine is:
-- Michael Bosworth (email@example.com), June 09, 2001.