Outdoor Photographer magazine.....

Awesome magazine, lots of tips, yet.....

 

A few things bug me about this magazine. I notice they tend to

cater to the same top nature photographers. I see photos from: Art

Wolfe, Galen Rowell, Jack Dyjinga (sp?), George Lepp, etc... over &

over again, even in the showcase. Guess it must be good to be "in"

with such magazines....but how about giving new, lesser-known

photographers a chance??

 

I'm noticing alot of the articles seemed to be re-hashed from past

issues. Of course, this is the same problem with alot of magazines.

 

One last complaint: Outdoor Photographer shouldn't place ads in the

back of their magazine for shady places such as A&M Photoworld, CCI,

Digital Liquidators, etc.... Do they want up-and-coming or unaware

photographers to get screwed??

I used to subscribe to OP but quit a while ago. The quality of the writing took two big hits with the deaths of John Netherton and Galen Rowell. The last I looked it was chock full of gear "reviews" which might just as well have been written by the manufacturer's marketing department. Worst of all, OP was getting more and more stuffed with crap on digital which is of no interest to me, and if it was I would buy their other mag, PC Photo. The ads in photo mags never bothered me because I never read them.

I gave up on OP years ago. Lot's of pretty glossy pictures (including pretty ads for SUVs and high tech clothing) but not much substance. All the magazines recycle content. They figure they get a new readership every few years, so the recycled stuff looks new to most of their audience. They have their regular contributors. It's much easier to deal with people you know than to try to bring in new talent. Makes life a lot easier for the editors.

 

They're in the business of selling advertising. Like most magazines, everything else comes second. Sorry to sound cynical, but that's the way the world works.

<p>To avoid confusion... there are two different magazines with similar names:

 

<p>US based "Outdoor Photographer" trash

 

<p>and UK based <a href="http://www.thegmcgroup.com/ccp51/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?usr=51F9414978&rnd=5802307&rrc=N&affl=&cip=207.105.30.44&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=1006OP&cat=Photography&catstr=HOME:Photography">"Outdoor Photography"</a> which is probably the nicest "nature photography" magazine out there.

I'm sure Gary is referring to the US based "Outdoor Photographer", so I've corrected the thread title.

"Outdoor Photographer" went down the toilet when Rob Sheppard became the editor. I guess that was the only way he could get his photos published...

I've actually had ONE picture published in OP. I found out about it at Border's Books. It was nice to see the picture in there, would have been nice if they let me know they were going to use it. I DID get paid, though.

 

One of the regular contributors to OP told me not to bother sending them anything because he said they hang onto the images forever and you never know what happened.

 

I think if there is anything worse than the magazine, it's their web site. It consists of about a hundred banner ads on a page, with about two sentences of content.

I agree with several points made here especially the "digital" one. More and more this magazine is becoming "Outdoor Digital Photographer," and I am another film photographer with no interest in that realm. I also feel that the UK photo mags are vastly superior to ours here in the US.

I'm actually beginning to think that DaimlerChrysler owns a percentage of this magazine. It seems like every few months they have a special "Jeep" issue. Extolling the virtues of a Jeep, implying that your chances of getting a good shot depend on finding it while offroading in your Jeep, showing all kinds of pictures of the Jeep in offroad situations, etc. The only thing stopping those issues from being an official Jeep sales brochure is that they're missing the page to show all the colours and options you can order.

 

I also agree with the above poster. The magazine went way downhill since John Netherton and Galen Rowell died.

 

On the other hand, I still buy it <sigh> because I just never know when it might have some good info on a location previously unknown to me.

Yikes, that's a pretty harsh comment about Rob Sheppard. Speaking of digital, I had deadline that just passed on an article that they said would run this Fall. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, I hope the previous negative posts about their policies aren't true for my case. I'm definetely unknown outside of my family and friends so I guess it's not impossible.

 

Compared to the other american magazines like popular photography, OP seems like National Geographic. At least they run great pictures most of the time and have pretty cool portfolio interviews on people I wouldn't know of otherwise. That recent article by the bird guy from Nebraska was really cool as well.

 

Hey Michael, how is it that you got paid for a photograph and yet you seemed surprised by what you found at the newsstand?

<P>If you come across a copy of <B>Outdoor Photography</B> magazine, take a look. It's very UK-biased so non-UK readers won't find the location features helpful unless they are about to visit us. However, it does look beyond our shores. The current issue has a good feature on old Kodachrome images of small town America for instance. As photo magazines go, I'd say it was one of the more sensible ones.</P>

I still get OP - don't know why, guess old habits are hard to break. I still enjoy some articles (mostly the opening columns) and a few features on different photogs but my biggest complaint is that just about everything they show, it seems, comes from the west. I live in the Northeast and heaven forbid they show a shot from the northeast besides Acadia more than once a year! The trend towards digital doesn't bother me as that is reality as to where photography is headed. I still shoot film but have a digital darkroom and don't mind keeping current. At first that angle bothered me but not anymore.

 

The thing with OP is that it's a club. They have their 10 photographers they like to work with and every once in a while, if you are lucky enough, they give someone else a sniff.

I find OP to be trite,cliche and completely lacking in imagination!Plus,who wants to take outdoor pictures in a place that a 1/2 million subscribers know about?

I gave up my subscription years ago. I now buy it on the newsstand 2-3 times a year and that I can stand. It's almost as expensive as a year's subscription, but at least I don't get aggrevated...

Can someone post a link to where an American can get a subscription to the UK Outdoor Photography? Also I wouldn't mind getting a subscription to Chasseur D'Images if anyone knows how to get that sent to the US.

Jay, click through to Amazon.com for <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009951A/103-4276947-5293446">Outdoor Photography</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007J6TC/103-4276947-5293446">Chasseur d'Images</a>.

I agree with all the setiments listed. There's no depth or substance. And, it read like a big advertisement with every other article explaining why you should go digital and why whatever is available is perfect for your needs.

 

Still, I found that if you keep throwing away all their renewal "deals" until your very last months issue arives, the renewal offer that comes around this time is the best one and dirt cheap at that. I'll resign then. I suppose when this doesn't happen is when I'll quit.

I'm surprised to hear anyone even bothers to pay for it! I think it

arrived free for about 2 years, and by the time I hadn't responded

to their 63rd offer to subscribe, they gave up. I agree with the

notion that it's mostly very lightweight writing, junky ads, with

occasional nice images. In any case, you could learn more

surfing PN for an hour than you ever would from that crap...

 

I'm not sure there's anyone (like an editor) to blame really; they're

not an educational institution, they're just making a buck. You

won't get advertising by giving scathing critiques, so those

reviews never see the light of day. Part of that profit mentality is

not taking any chances with "up and coming" photographers,

why should they? The warhorses can provide enough stock for

decades. Ditto on the emphasis on digital stuff; that's where the

$$$ is coming from after all.

 

In the end, what I really hate about OP is the lack of any real

creativity. They'll show how to take the standard pretty

sunsets/flowers/slot canyons so you can impress your relatives,

but that's about it. Fight the Power!! ;>)

Here are some comments on OP from 5 years ago. I don't think much has changed.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0003SQ">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0003SQ</a>

<p>

It's really a magazine for those who like nice, fairly conventional nature landscape pictures and want to follow in the footsteps of their heros. Nothing wrong with that I guess, there are plenty of people like that.

<p>

Note that Rob Sheppard, the editor of OP, is also the editor of "PCPhoto", which may explain any perceived digital leanings.

<p>

About the only photo magazine I know of that isn't run on the basis of advertising is "Lenswork". It carries ads, but only for "Lenswork" items such as fine art prints, back issues etc. No color, no equipment reviews, it's very much catering to a small minority of photographers. If you want the big bucks, you have to give the people what they want. These days that's digital and pretty pictures. In business, the customer is always right...

Here's how I see it: for less than $1.50/issue you get to review some great images (most of the full-size showcase ones printed are not from digital photographers by the way, if that matters) AND William Neill's column. To me those alone make it quite a deal and worth subscribing to.

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild Photography</a>

I'm sorry to disagree with some but I think this magazine is quite

simply dire. The photography is overblown and gaudy , and the

production values in general poor. I used not to feel so

negative but I am starting to feel that the work of many of the US

landscape "masters" is getting to be very predictable, location

limited and unimaginative. I can't understand why their work-

and the magazine - don't seem to move on.

 

The UK magazine is better though not as good as it was . They

seem to be running out of interesting locations to cover and

some of the photographers featured nowadays aren't at the top

of the pile. They need a change of emphasis I think.

Nature Photographer magazine has good writing and has no ads. I don't think their submission policy is the same as most magazines tho.

 

There's a UK magazine I used to buy called What Digital Camera? I learned a lot of Photoshop stuff through there and they have honest equipment reviews. A lot of the images are amateurish though.

David, not to sound disprespectful but your argument is similar to a food critic buying a Taco Bell burito and complaining about it not being the pinnacle of gastronomic achievements.<br>

These magazines are aimed at the mass consumer market - high volume, low cost. Their content and production quality reflect exactly that.<br>

If you want a 7-course exotic meal - make reservations at a good restaurant. There are other magazines that cater to more complex, less consumer-driven contingencies (e.g. LensWork). Of course higher quality comes with a premium. You can't expect this type of content and production for $1.50...<br>

I'm the sort who enjoys a quick bite at the fast food place as well a fancy dinner at a gourmet restaurant. It's all a matter of matching expectations.<br>

<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild Photography</a>

I have been subscribing to OP almost since the beginning. And I am in agreement with everything the previous posters wrote. But I will likely continue to be a subscriber for the occasional nugget of knowledge hidden among the ads. Another favorite of mine "Backpacker" has gone down the same road (or is it trail) of admania. The only value of increasing readership is to affect ad pricing.

I tend to agree with Guy's position in that, when I decide whether or not to renew my subscription, I ask myself, "Do I get a buck and a half's worth of enjoyment out of it?" The answer is invariably "yes," so I send the check. They do recycle a lot of material over the course of a few years (watch for a David Muench feature about every 2-2.5 years, but the more D. Muench, the better!), but there's usually enough new material to sustain $1.50's worth of interest. I also like them dabbling into digital tech.