 BetterPhoto Member |
Photography Magazine Please read and respond to this thread even if there are 150 replies. I will read it. O.K. here goes. I have been an OP subscriber for near eight years now and they have plunged over the digital precipice and trying to drag me along kicking and screaming. I must admit, the most digital experience I have is with my wife's Coolpix 4100 and my old Kodak DC210 (which I no longer have). I know about digital photography and it is neat to see where photography is going, but I STILL SHOOT SILVER HALIDES! YEAH, ME! OVER HERE! IN THE HAWAIIAN SHIRT AND THE LITTLE UMBRELLA! (Oh sorry was that out loud?) Anywho, I want a magazine that is for 35mm film SLR shooters almost exclusively. I can pick Outdoor Photographer if I want to catch up with George Lepp. I want to read about what and only what I use everyday, not be distracted with the dream of the digital studio I might never have and take advantage of the one I love, enjoy, know and have right now. Please give me suggestions and I will check them all out. Thank you guys for all your help and support. Have a great day. Chris Walrath
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
i don't know of any, but would like to know also. sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Christopher, I'm not sure that there are any photography magazines dedicated to film SLR users nowadays - given the demographics of the digital users, it probably cannot be justified economically to puclish such a thing. Besides, there just aren't that many new film-only geegaws being introduced. If you read View Camera magazine, you will see that it's pretty much all about film (not a log of digital use in that world yet) - but of course it's not 35MM or SLR specific. But, think about it - what do the photo magazines have in them, anyway? Articles of three basic types: introductory how-to's for beginners, advanced techniques for experienced folk, and new equipment. If you've been around as long as you say, you already know the intro stuff. You probably know most of the advanced stuff, too - I doubt Depth of Field or panning are new concepts to you. And as for new stuff - there just isn't that much. Shutterbug and the others all have "what's new" type sections, and invariably include whatever stuff comes out for film users. And rules of DOF and panning or shutter blur don't change from film to digital use anyway, so why would a publisher try to alienate this huge and growing contingent of photographic enthusiasts to please the folks who prefer film (and I'm one of the flimies too).
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
'Cause I want him to! No just kidding. I know where you're coming from and I know all of this and I current get View Camera and I guess I might be venting a little. But thanks for the feed back. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kitty Cross |
Chris et al I'm a film user as well and I guess the reason I prefer to read magazines oriented to film users is not because I necessarily need to learn how to use depth of field or choose what kind of lens works for portraits. It's because of the inspiration. When I see a great image that I know had to do PRIMARILY with choosing the exposure and being sure about the lighting and making it spectacular because you knew a neat trick using the conditions as they stand, and your heart understands the need for the right moment, then I'm inspired and encouraged. When I see a stunning photograph that pulls at that long lost feeling inside of me and I know what you saw the first time made me feel like that, then I am moved and inspired again. (I can't explain exactly what the difference is between that image and a manipulated/fixed/changed one is but there is a difference) That's why I would want a film based magazine. Couldn't care less about product reports.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Kitty, I'm not sure if you're just trolling for flames or you're serious, because what you describe (which is really the best reasoning to want to read photo magazines) has absolutely nothing with whether the magazine in question is geared to film or digital, Minox of 4x5". Regardless of the technology used, exposure still depends on the proper selection of aperture, shutter speed and imaging surface sensitivity (be that film or CCD). COmposition and lighting (let's not forget about lighting) also play major roles. Great images are great not because of what camera was used to make them (usually despite that). So you should be able to glean inspiration from any photgrahic-oriented magazine (as well as many others, for that matter)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kitty Cross |
Sorry for interfering in the discussion. You're absolutely right--photograph has nothing to to with the gear and I obviously missed the point Chris was making. I'll stay out of it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
i didn't think you were interfering at all kitty. it would'nt be a discussion if there was only one point of view. when my subscriptions run out on the three mags I get I won't renew. i don't think even 10% of any of the info is going to even slightly help me. sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
I have been a subscriber to OP for a long time (probably 10 years, with a lapse here and there). I also subscribe to Pop Photo and Peterson's Photographic. Photographic had become my favorite, because of all of the tutorials and how to articles, even if some of them were more of a beginner bend. I don't mind brushing up on the basics, and some of the articles gave me new ways of looking at the way I was doing it. I really enjoy OP, and there was a point before I went to digital that I felt like Christopher. I will let my subscription to Pop Photo expire, and not renew. I find myself not reading it much, and not getting much out of it. It seems to have become a yes man for the camera and lens companies, afraid to say a bad thing about any of their products for fear of losing out on the shwag. Peterson's has published it's last issue, and is converting all of it's resources to Shutterbug (they had better honor my subscription!!) This will leave me with OP, which is still a mag I enjoy. As for strictly film mags, you might have trouble. Search the web or go to a big book store that has a large selection of magazines, and you will probably find something. As for Kitty's response, don't think that just because it was shot with film it hasn't had anything done if PS. And to get an outstanding photo with digital, very little is usually done digitally, you still need to take a perfect picture, that hasn't changed since the Ansel Adams said you needed to start with the perfect negative.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
The focus of consumer magazines is two-fold: First, there is the responsibility to their sponsors,...those who advertize their goods or services on the pages of the magazine. Second is their readership,...keeping things current, informative and interesting so people keep buying or renewing their subscriptions. Chris, The photography magazines of today have changed their focus more toward digital photography because that's what's "current, informative and interesting" to the majority of their readership.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Teri Soares |
Chris, I don't know if this will help or not, but, there are a lot of great magazines that originate in the UK. Their camera per capita ratio must be really high. Anyway, Photography Monthly (which is carried by Barnes & Noble and can be subscribed to here in the US) still features film and the articles are really not format specific. Check them out if you care to. http://www.photographymonthly.com/ Teri
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
Teri, one problem with Photography Monthly, it may not be format specific, but I think that is is more UK specific. Unless you live in the UK(or plan to visit) a lot of it is useless. The one that I tried, had a big travel guide which told you good places in the UK to go. That and it was a little expensive(9$ an issue, maybe because they had to ship it all the way from the UK). One good magazine that I've found is Photo Techniques. This isn't just film, but it's more what it says it is, Techniques, which doesn't matter which you have. But I can tell that most of the articles are written by people that use film.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Teri Soares |
Brendan, I agree with you completely about the UK location focus of Photography Monthly. What I have found though, and I have been a subscriber for about a year, is that they have good articles. The one I just got has a good feature that gives ideas about what to shoot while/ if you're stuck inside (I think this is true year round for the folks in rainy UK), with tips on how the author perfected his shots. This might not be for the seasoned pro, but I found it inspirational and instructive. The UK magazines also tend to have fewer pages of ads and more articles. Plus, their glossy presentation appeals to me. You're also right about Photo Techniques. And maybe LensWork would be a good one for Chris, as well. It's an artsier publication with more portfolios and I think, more film.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Walker |
try APUG.ORG and check out their magazine, "Emulsions"
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Keep'um comin. Thank s guys.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Christopher: Yes, I understand what you mean. The world suddenly went digital and the magazines did as well. Canada's Photo Life covers both. www.photolife.com It's available in some areas of the US. (I am a contributor but cover only digital topics now.) Regards, Peter Burian, Instructor
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Warren |
Not only did the magazines "go digital", but my favorite manufacturer did as well. Minolta stopped making the 7 and 9 models and now only have 1 basic and one advanced entry level film model available. I know digital is the wave of the future, but I must say I think the hype is overrated and premature. If the goal of a photographer is to take the best photos possible, why spend more to get less? I'm sticking with film until I can get comparable quality for less than the price of a used Honda. OK, that's my rant, but to answer the thread, I agree that you my find more of a selection with U.K. magazines, but do not agree that they are of little use. What makes a good photo in the U.K. makes a good photo here. The only issue I can see is if you are more interested in the ads or reviews of camera models that are not available in the U.S. Other than that, I read them often and have learned a lot from them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
"I know digital is the wave of the future, but I must say I think the hype is overrated and premature" .... Steve: Well, I have to disagree. I would have agreed three years ago but not today. I tested 35mm SLR cameras for about ten years (for magazines). Also wrote nine books about them (Magic Lantern Guides to some Minolta and Nikon SLR's.) About four years ago, I also started testing digital SLR cameras. Initially, they were not great. But today, I shoot only digital. I sold my 35mm SLR cameras about a year ago. Because I could find absolutely no benefit to shooting film. OK, a 6 megapixel camera might not be as suitable as ISO 100 film for those who need 16x20 prints. But how many people do? Wedding photogs make large prints and most of them have switched to digital SLR's, usually the 8 megapixel models. (At least for their Location shooting.) Take a technically superb image and you can make a gallery quality 13x19" print. Some wedding pros make MUCH larger prints, but honestly, ISO 100 film would be better for that purpose than an 8 megapixel D SLR. Most photo enthusiasts are more than happy with the best 6 megapixel D SLR's. And especially the 8 megapixel cameras, including the affordable Rebel XT (EOS 350D in Europe). Come over to my office sometime and I'll show you 13x19" prints that will knock your socks off. That's the largest print I can make with my Epson 2200. (From 6 and 8 megapixel D SLR's.) Or read the Review of the Rebel XT at www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EXT/EXTA14.HTM Cheers! Peter Burian P.S. Here is an excerpt from their Review. "Print Quality: Excellent prints at 13x19 inches and larger. (Some sharpening in the computer helps though.) Very low noise, ISO 1600 shots look good even at 13x19. Prints from the Rebel XT look just beautiful at the 13x19 inch maximum paper size on our i9900, and judging from how clean they appeared at that size, could be blown up a fair bit larger and still hold together quite nicely. .... The harshest tests of print size re always high-ISO shots, but here again the XT came through with flying colors. ISO 1600 shots printed at 13x19 were noticeably grainy, but with most subjects (and viewers), you won't really be able to see it at viewing distances greater than about 18 inches or so. Printed at 8x10, ISO 1600 noise just won't be an issue at all, for any but the most extreme anti-noise fanatics. A very impressive performance."
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Yeah, Peter. But what about suggestions for magazines?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Chris: I had provided one earlier about Photo Life. Since I am a digital photographer, I am not really familiar with magazines that cover primarily film photography. Peter
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||