'Arizona Highways' fallen on hard times

'Arizona Highways,' which infamously and oddly has had a film-only rule for

photography running in its magazine, is having a hard time surviving.

 

The 82-year-old publication's circulation has dropped an average of 10% annually

during the past four years. (More than half of the subscribers are 65 or older.)

"I believe that, without a change in strategy, the magazine will be dead in five

to seven years," says Peter Aleshire, who was recently replaced as editor.

 

More here:

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0630azhighways0630.html

Get with the times or die.

 

Don`t blame them for not wanting small files, but thay can specify requirements just like some specified 2 1/4 sq minimum years back.

 

Hope they gave the editor a nice Cannon D5 for a retirement gift.

An anachronistic "state-owned" boutique publication that "operates at a deficit" with a dwindling readership- sounds like a perfect candidate for an NEH grant.

How do we know the magazine's financial/subscription situation is due to its large format film-only policy? Is it because everyone has turned digital and the megazine is not getting any acceptable quality input anymore? Or is it other things, like the writing, the changing readership?

I think the problems Arizona Highways is having is a combination of everything mentioned. In this day and age of digital photography and high resolution film scanning the requirement of 4x5 transparencies for publication is alienating many of us you would love to submit to the magazine. It is killing their image pool and thusly they are not exposing themselves to new readers. When you have your work published you buy the magazine, proably even a subscribion, and get everyone you know to read the magazine.

 

This is also a problem for article submissions, as many writers will include images with it as a package. Many wonderful writers either don't shoot large format or can't find a photographer that shoots only large format and doesn't have the film scanned and do the darkroom work in Photoshop. Thusly, the writing pool is also smaller which leads to less interesting articles and subscribers that find other ways to spend their money.

 

When the next generation of readers/photographers/writers don't know you even exist its difficult to publish, run workshops and survive.

 

Ed Mendes

www.edwardmednes.com

www.whitespider.org

<I>....the requirement of 4x5 transparencies for publication is alienating many of us you

</I><P>Then convert your digital file to 4x5 film and send it to them, that is what a

professional photographer would do if he shoots digital and wanted to show in Arizona

Highways.

Mr. Wang, who claimed that the magazine's woes are DUE "to its large format film-only policy?" No one said that.

 

However, the magazine's silly film-only policy is apparently indicative of other poor decisions that have put the future of the magazine at risk. Indeed, if you read the comments to the article linked above, you will see many, many complaints about the stodgy, backwards nature of the magazine as being a problem. That stodginess extended all the way to the photo submissions policy.

I adored that magazine as a teenager in the 1950's. The pictures were of such high quality! Did not know what large format was at that time, but of course it makes sense that they used it. Had no idea they were still in publication.

I subscribed for quite a while up to maybe five years ago. I got a really terrible service when starting my subscription, waiting months for my first magazine and getting multiple renewal and "gift to friends" solicitations before I'd had a single copy. Furthermore I felt that the standard of photography and reproduction was by no means brilliant, despite the supposed pickiness of the selection process. Frankly I can see as good or better photographs of Arizona here or in any bookshop. But the main reason I stopped subscribing was that the articles and photography were just samey and I really felt they were struggling to make interesting content.

 

Nobody likes to see an icon struggle, but frankly without making substantial changes to service levels and content this comes as little surprise. And you don't make improvements if you're smug. I don't much care about their selection policy for photography except insofar as one issues' photographs always seemed to me about the same as the next. I don't think their difficulties stem from selection policy- I think they stem from thinking that you are running a great and interesting magazine when you're not.

I used to buy the magazine periodically at the local Barnes and Noble but it disappeared from the newsstand several years ago. I also bought copies of several other travel oriented magazines but they too have disappeared--pushed out by the overabundance of celebrity claptrap and other pieces of narcissistic BS publications. The decline in readership of Arizona Highways probably has more to do with the decline in the number of people who read in general than anything else. Now that I know it's still around, I think I'll go to its website and subscribe.

They need some photos of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan partying. And those are hard to get using 4x5 film

I remember writing to them and getting an answer on the "film only" requirements. I found it to be technically nonsensical, showing that the management at the magazine had hung its hat on some kind of urban legend. I used to enjoy the magazine, but can't remember buying a recent copy. One reason? Most of its images are of the over-saturated "radioactive" type, giving untold Americans and Foreigners the impression that all of Arizona is Fluorescent and on a permanent sunset-glowing doo-dah LSD trip of some kind with Timothy Leary. (Cactus picture 1,500,000.01) In the past, I remember it doing some great historic articles accompanied by photographs that did not contain canyons and cacti all of the time. The magazine is hung up on itself. Perhaps our current governor "Super-Janet" can kick some of the cobwebs out.

But isn't this a reflection of a more fundamental issue....newspapers are also experiencing a declining readership. More and more young people get their information, whether video, audio, news, by way of the Web. I suspect a declining readership base has nothing to do with their film policy.

Were it not for "Arizona Highways", I would not have seen the staircase once trod by Pancho Villa on his horse. Unfortunately, 9 out of 10 articles in AH are on this level. Few are adventure oriented, most are simply places you can drive or 4-wheel to. Walking is a no-no. You might cross private property (most of Arizona and nearly all of Oak Creek Canyon) or be mistaken for an immigrant.

 

I've subscribed or received gift subscriptions on and off for nearly 20 years. I can't say I've been interested enough to completely read more than an half-dozen articles in that time. The pictures are great, but often unrelated to content. It is, by charter, a shill for tourism.

"Walking is a no-no."

 

 

"Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic." -Edward Weston

Sorry Eric, the quote was from Edward's son Brett Weston.

Doh! -Eric Friedemann quoting Homer Simpson

"They need some photos of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan partying. And those are hard to get using 4x5 film"

 

Nope. You just wait till they are passed out or OD'd

The readership is dying off, thus so wil the publication.<p>Its demise has nothing at all to do with film Vs. digital.

Ed, that presumes that a magazine is born with a specific readership which sticks with a magazine until the reads die. This is of course false. Magazines must constantly keep themselves relevant, and the previous editor of AH clearly was stuck in a mindset which hurt the magazine.

<i> When you have your work published you buy the magazine, proably even a subscribion, and get everyone you know to read the magazine.

</i>

<p>

Not really. You request a free copy and tear sheets from the magazine.

In general working photographers don't have enough time to read all the publications that use their images :-)

<i>In general working photographers don't have enough time to read all the publications that use their images </i><p>Not only that, I don't necessarily have any interest in reading the magazines that use my images, at least so far. When Tattoo Magazine runs my photos (I have enough, they really should), I will subscribe.

Wow. Lots of folks trying to guess why Arizona Highways is going down the crapper. Many points are right on, even more way off--and the most salient ones not even discussed. And I know--I published in this magazine a lot and went to all the annual conferences, etc., for years.

 

Here are a few of the problems "outsiders" do not know about.....

 

1. The magazine is "writer-driven". There is an editor for the writing dept, and one for the photo dept. The photos are selected to illustrate some portion of a story, instead of the best photos being selected. Portfolios are an exception, of course. Even though nearly everyone gets the magazine just to look at the photos, the power is on the side of the writers. Which seems kind of backwards to me--and creates lots of hard feelings on the other side. And don't try to both write and photograph--the editors don't believe writers can take photos and vice versa. So much of the best work possible is prohibited right off the bat (wonderful first person accounts).

 

2. It is a "club". And within this club is a micro-club of alike photographers who get most of the assignments. It really doesn't matter if you are good or not--and it doesnt matter if you use 4x5 either, though they give that a lot of lip service. Many images and covers are shot with medium format gear. It just matters if you are liked. So you don't exactly get a lot of the new, edgy, adventurous stuff like is desperately needed.

 

3. The photo editor has been there a long time. So the club is older, not too edgy, maybe not even able to hike far....Being at the conferences felt more like attending an old-folks home than anything else.

 

4. The photo editor considers himself a pro--and publishes his own photos in the magazine.....leading to serious questions on ethics, quality, fairness, etc.

 

5. Incredibly unique stories on Wilderness Areas without any public access, for instance, are turned down. Reason given: because the tourists can't go there and see what was photographed. Apparently, such stories are not "boring" enough....

 

Film vs digital has nothing to do with this magazines probable demise. The reasons lie with control issues, seniority, and favortism. The only solution is for someone in state government to clean out this sinking ship and replace ALL of the editors with those younger and more openminded and dedicated to the best work and not who is best liked. And while you're at it--allow a photographic magazine to be run by photographers, not writers.

Here is a <a href="http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_AskPhotog&nav=photo">link</a> to the photo FAQ.

It seems as though they are trying to make progress in some

areas. Paul

Isn't it more likely that the 4x5 film thing is keeping circulation *up* rather than pushing it down?

 

Absent the pictures, there's little reason to get the magazine. If they loosen the standards, odds are the LF enthusiasts who buy the magazine, and otherwise care little about Arizona, will drop out.