View Camera Magazine suggestions?

(I'm taking the liberty of starting a new thread in case folks don't

see the thread that spawned this discussion.)

 

<p>

 

A ways down in the thread below on Michael Fatali, Steve Simmons,

editor of View Camera magazine, generously offered the following:

 

<p>

 

"I am very open to hearing suggestions as to the types of articles

people would like to see in View Camera. Just keep in mind the

following:

 

<p>

 

--We can't do just b&w landscape photography

 

<p>

 

--There are just so many ways to do film graphs

 

<p>

 

--I would prefer not to repeat articles we have done in the past. We

have many readers who have been subscribers from the beginning and I

do not feel it is fair to them to give them the same article again.

 

Now, what would yu like to see in future issues???"

 

<p>

 

On behalf of others in this forum, allow me to thank Mr. Simmons for

keeping his cool after reading the thread on Mr. Fatali--and for

gracefully giving us this opportunity.

 

<p>

 

Suggestions for View Camera?

 

<p>

 

<><><><><>>

I haven't seen the current issue yet, but has VC done a feature on

Andreas Gursky yet? I think he's doing some things that are

intrinsically large format.

 

<p>

 

I think VC did a great thing by publishing Michael Smith's pieces on

Azo. I am sure those articles have contributed substantially to

keeping it around at least for the moment. They were free publicity

for Kodak and informative for readers. Given the rate at which

materials seem to be disappearing, maybe there ought to be a regular

column that makes the case for why these films and papers should stick

around, or perhaps why new materials ought to be made available in

large format.

There are two large format photographers of note who, I believe, have

not been profiled in View Camera. One of them is the American-Israeli

photographer, Neil Folberg, who has produced stunning books on the

Sinai desert and synagogues of the world. Another is Edward Burtynsky,

a Toronto photographer who is Canada's, and one of the world's,

leading (colour) photographer of the industrial landscape. I would

also be interested in an article that discusses the lighting

techniques and choice of film and chemistry of Yousuf Karsh, who

achieved such a distinctive look in his best known portrait

photography of the 1940s through the 1970s.

The recent issue devoted to architectural photography was great. Also

liked the article on Richard Nickel in the current issue. I'd like to

see more interior and exterior LF work in colour, if possible. How

about Norman McGrath?

I would love to see an issue on either Michael McKenna, or his up-and-

coming assistant, Rolfe Horn.

As far as a photographer profile, I would like to see one on Patricia

Richardson, Plano, TX. She is an outstanding environmental

portraitist with an impressive resume.<br><br>

 

Technically speaking, I think continued concentration on alternative

processing (not just Pt/Pd - thanks) will not only encourage

newcomers to the disciplines but will serve to reaffirm that

masochism is indeed alive and well amongst large format (as if that

wasn't enough) enthusiasts.

A few off-the-cuff remarks regarding VC magazine:

(1) Unfortunately, it's the only LF camera periodical; without it we

would be in the dark. (2) A picture is worth a thousand words and Mr.

Simons might consider eliminating every thousand words and adding at

least one photograph. They say that Playboy readers fall into two

categories--those who read and those who look at the pictures! (3)

Eliminate the "cult of personality" that afflicts typical mainstream

media. I'm not particularly interested in famous photographers, their

personsal biographies, or their philosophy regarding photography. If I

want philosphy I'll read LensWork.

 

<p>

 

......................

I was a "charter" subscriber to View Camera, and have a complete set

of the first 4 or 5 years of the magazine. At some point, I felt it

was no longer addressing my interests. The number of technical

articles fell off, to be replaced by more portfolios and interviews.

 

<p>

 

I have recently resubscribed, though I often find myself

somewhat "let down" by an issue when I receive it. I feel the

magazine somehow doesn't have enough substance--I always want more of

the "good stuff". But by the same token, I am cognizant of the

difficulty of putting out a world-class production six times per

year. I have noticed from the earliest issues that the magazine is

poorly proofed--there is some typo, misspelling, or incorrect usage

in almost every issue. [March/April 2001, page 61: "Humidity still

plays a roll..."]

 

<p>

 

I'd like to see some articles on large format pinhole photography and

infrared photography, more excellent alternative process articles

(like Sullivan on Ziatype Printing), and more technical articles.

 

<p>

 

On the whole, I think Steve Simmons is doing us all a great favor by

publishing View Camera, and I don't think he's making any money on

it, so it is really a labor of love.

With the recent demise of more lf film, perhaps this publication

could use it's clout to badger the film makers about what we lf film

users can expect to lose and / or gain in the near future.

First I would like to thank Mr. Simmons for a first rate resource. I

was really upset with myself when I failed to send in my renewal

(don't ask)and missed the last issue. Thankfully the new issue

showed up yesterday.

 

<p>

 

I myself would love to see more articles on still life studio

techniques, lighting, composition, and special effects, close-up and

macro work, an article on old lenses and the results one can expect

might be nice, and more hard core technical articles like the one

last year spelling out how to mix and use T-Max developer. The T-Max

article alone has saved me enough to cover my subscription this year!

 

<p>

 

Thanks again,

I let my subscription lapse because, as novice I wasn't getting

much out of the technical articles. If there were comprehensive

technical articles that were written with my skill level in mind then

I'd resubscribe. But I'm not going to order back issues for

previous material when I'm not confident it will translate into

better pictures for me. As of now I just scan the new issues on the

magazine rack to see if they contain anything of interest.

I hope this isn't taken for anything but solicited constructive

criticism.

Why is the quality of the reproductions so variable?

 

<p>

 

In this issue Messers Fatali & Schory's work looks really good but

Mr.s Spence & Kirby come off pretty dark and mucky. Similarly in the

SEP/OCT issue with the Mammoth Camera Workshop review and portfolios -

Paula Chamlees work was done MUCH better justice than had been done

when you ran an entire article on "High Plains Farm" in the MAR/APR

(or was it May/June) issue. I've seen Kirbys work in Lenswork

Quarterly and know it can look better than it did in this issue of VC.

 

<p>

 

Of late you have been including tech info in the photographers

profiles - for which I am greatful! Keep it at the end though as an

aside rather than dwelling on it UNLESS the article is specifically

about technique. If the technique is something off the beaten path,

some amplification would be appreciated.

 

<p>

 

My favorite issues were the MAR/APR 95 and JAN/FEB 98 - both CHOCK

FULL of good material. I feel like there hasn't been an issue that

useful in a while.

 

<p>

 

Gordon Hutchings' articles have been quite good and his writing style

is much apprecaited.

 

<p>

 

How about an article, or series on "What's in my Camera Case" - i.e.

a break down by photogs with a shot of their case -how they pack it

and when/how they use it, how it applies to their approach, etc. The

same thing could be done for darkrooms, etc.

 

<p>

 

For me the "How" of photography is important, but the "Why" moreso -

I am VERY glad John Paul Caponigro cotributes his interviews! The

darkroom and camera kit articles would hopefully illustrate how the

two - the "how" and the "why" work together.

 

<p>

 

Little bummed at the re-tread of Ron Wisner's on-line Q&A column in

this last issue. I guess that may be part of the reason for my

fading enthusiasm - I'm on-line now and don't feel as isolated as I

was when I first started subscribing. Used to be I couldn't wait the

two months! I think maybe that's why a lot of us were surprised at

the Fatali article - we had all known about the incident and

discussed it pretty extensively back when it happened. I guess a lot

of us assumed it was common knowledge.

I'd like to see an article on Phil Harris from Portland, Oregon. His

recent book "Fact Fiction Fabrication" is excellent. I especially like

his constructed photos called "fictions" which seem to arouse

emotional/psychological responses in me. He can be contacted at

philboy@teleport.com

 

<p>

 

Scott

Well, I'm not a "charter" subscriber, but I've been getting VC for a

looong time. It's one magazine that I save every copy of, and find

myself going back to old issues for reference from time to time. I

think it's a well designed, and reproduced publication, but I have

noticed the typos...I'm not really interested in landscape

photography, so I didn't follow that other thread, but I thought I'd

just add a voice of support for the magazine. The only other

publication out there that's better (for me) is PDN. Photo Tech has

pretty lousy reproductions, and aside from David Vestal, there's not

much to it. The one publication I really miss is the old Camera &

Darkroom magazine. I get "Camera Arts", but I don't find it to be as

interesting as C&D was. Also, I believe VC had an issue with Norman

McGrath a few years back. The only gripe I have with VC, is that every

few years when I have to renew, they inevitably mess it up . For the

past two times, I've had my subscription lapse, and have had to call

back again, the first time more than once, to get it started back up.

The first time (4 yrs+ ago) I was sorta annoyed with having to make a

third call...and Steve Simmons actually picked up the phone that

day....

i would like to see a focus on the HABS/HAER photographers, jet lowe

and jack bouchard. i would also like to see a series of intensive

articles on significant historic photographers - edouard baldus, le

gray, carleton watkins, sebah, bonfils, beato, macpherson, a j

russell, etc. i really don t care about pop "fine art"

photographers. i dont need to see any more "technical" articles for

beginners.

Yo,

 

<p>

 

I realize it's the only one we have... and Steve realizes that it can

be better and that's great so I won't mince words or make mine

"civil".

 

<p>

 

In no way would I want View Camera to concentrate on any one aspect of

large format photography, especially landscapes. Lack of variety in

VIEW CAM hasn't been a problem so far but cow-towing to workshops and

"fine-art" photogs has.

 

<p>

 

The coverage of the above seems disproportionate to the numbers of

photogs actually attending workshops and practicing the arts. Do I

want our beloved View Cam to become a trade pub? Yes, if it means no

more "fine art" then good, go do it. I do enjoy the landscape work

chosen for the mag as well as the architectural and the tech stuff is

great, perfect and exactly what I need but regrettably, I might enjoy

one in ten of the "fine-art" features... it's the majority of the fine

art and all the hot air that goes with those kinds of photography

that's killing valuable column space.

 

<p>

 

Please edit subjectivity to nothing and let the photo do the

communicating even if it means ball-gagging the "arteest" by merely

quoting them once... especially if they're given to putting on heirs.

Instead emphasize their materials and techniques rather than

relegating the things we can know about a photo to the last couple of

graphs.

 

<p>

 

The technical articles are fine and there's no point in jazzing up a

chart or graph. View Camera customers are aesthetically conservative

lot and "jazzing down" is what we want. It's the shit that passes as

fine art and the softheads who make it that I can't stand. It's a

sucker's game and Steve and staff should show more restraint. If

fine-art is to be reviewed then make sure it's stood those archetypal

time-tests first.

 

<p>

 

Of the ones I can remember from past issues I felt were lousy... well,

here tis' like it or not Kenna sucks, burn his camera...at least he's

not wordy. Chamlee's photos were boring, not quiet and beautiful but

rather without worth of any kind. Jan Oswald's photo-art isn't good

enough to be toilet paper and her talking about it makes me want to

kill. That thing on TILT studios was a waste and I won't waste more

words describing it.

 

<p>

 

I've seen better photographic "art" put up for review on photonet's

critique page. That's the blind-spot, if Steve seems to have one,

fine art. So my suggestion in short is... fire JPC.

 

<p>

 

love and hand grenades,

 

<p>

 

tribby

 

<p>

 

 

p.s. Steve, I do want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for

the first two years of View Camera and every mistake inside them.

They were good, get the fire back, go rehire those people. I'd also

like to thank you for "Using the View Camera". It's the only one of

it's kind and in the future we'll credit you and it for helping to

keep LF alive.

J Norman, I'm with you on all that. My favorite issues have been the

ones that dealt with the more historic photographers/processes. That

may have to do more with my line of work (probably your case too). The

HABS/HAER issue was a great one, along with the FSA article. There was

another interview a while back with Eric Long, and the Smithsonian

photographers that really hit home with me. The museum photographer

(staffers) community is pretty small, so it's nice to see a focus on

this stuff. Personally, I'd like to see some more technical articles

dealing with conservation/preservation. Like I said, I'm not into

landscape stuff, but I enjoyed the Chicago Albumen Works article, and

things like that alot.

The work of Andreas Weidner. It good to here photographers are going to be doing their own profiles rather then some third party.

Technique, technique, technique.

 

<p>

 

I would love to see more ways to improve my exposures and processing.

Both digital and traditional printing methods.

I would like to see an article on the Packard Shutter--it's history,

use, and especially modern applications.

A swimsuit edition.

More than specific photographers who have or have not been featured in

View Camera (which is either water under the bridge or only 1-2

issues� worth of material) I�m interested in the "types" of article

published.

 

<p>

 

Unlike a poster somewhere above (the Playboy guy) I�m not convinced

that View Camera should offer more (or larger) photographs and fewer

words; frankly, I�d kind of like to see more words. Pictures are

available everywhere we look, and while numerous photos are obviously

appropriate in a magazine about photography(!), the difference between

a half-page photo and a full-page one is several paragraphs of

enlightening text. I also find with photography magazines that are

short on text that if I don�t like a set of photographs I get nothing

out of that section. On the other hand, I may not be crazy about

someone�s photographs but they may have a lot to say (Robert Adams

leaps to mind; his book of essays "Beauty in Photography" is to me

perhaps the single best photography book ever even though it has few

photos overall and none of his own). Besides, many magazines will

publish good LF photos, but only one magazine�View Camera�is likely to

publish the story behind those photos.

 

<p>

 

First, what shouldn�t View Camera do? The magazine must acknowledge

that the playing field has changed in the years since the magazine was

founded. There�s no reason to cover material that�s easily accessible

out there (or right here at this site) on the Internet or material

that is well-covered in books (like Steve Simmons� own!). Many

technical pieces fall into this latter category�especially articles

for beginners (which strike loyal�i.e., longtime�VC readers as a waste

of space). Even pictures can be viewed at photographers� websites in

great detail and in greater quantity than the magazine is likely to

offer.

 

<p>

 

So what SHOULD View Camera do? There�s still a lot that isn�t

available on the web (or in books) and View Camera could use its

gravitas to provide it. For me, the whole challenge of photography is

"learning to see," and I�ve tried to think of what kinds of articles

or feature series would be helpful toward that end. Five thoughts:

 

<p>

 

1. A feature called "People to watch," or "Emerging photographers" or

"New eyes" � This would be a single excellent photo and paragraph from

an undiscovered, often unpublished LF photographer (like many of us on

this site), perhaps 2 or 4 persons per issue (one page each). It

would be cheap for the magazine, be interesting for readers (who would

benefit from seeing strong images they might otherwise not have seen),

and would be a big boost to amateurs (in both senses of that word).

It�s not an unrealistic expectation, as to be published one would need

only have a single home run, not an entire winning career.

 

<p>

 

2. Icons of photography � Not people (who are well-covered in books)

but images. I�m thinking View Camera would publish an image that is

either well-known or strong enough that it should be well-known, along

with a historical explanation of it� and then would have a variety of

photographers and academics/critics/curators comment on the image,

say, a paragraph each. (I see it as a "dead-photographer" feature

because I think we could all learn more from studying the work of

those who made our mistakes decades before we did). Again, the goal

would be not only enlightening conversation and an exchange of

perspectives but also "learning to see."

 

<p>

 

3. Multiple interpretations of the same subject by different

photographers (yes, this could entail literally publishing a set of

workshop pictures). Alternatively, an explanation of how one

photographer solved the challenge of a single subject (snapshots from

various angles, explaining the shortcomings of each, accompanied by a

larger reproduction of the perspective the photographer ultimately

judged the best�with an explanation why it works for him/her). Not a

lot of space; perhaps a double-page spread every other issue or so.

 

<p>

 

4. More on books. Book reviews (both new and long out of print); book

lists (personal favorites) by photographers, known and unknown (and by

subject: landscape, architecture, etc.); articles on the book

industry; interviews with authors, editors, publishers, and printers;

excerpts from new books; stuff on collectible books (a huge sideline

to photography collecting), etc.

 

<p>

 

5. An ongoing series of self-written (or ghostwritten, based on

scratchings by the photographer) profiles of "working photographers,"

no more than one per issue: "On location with Susan Jones" or "In the

field with John Smith." Each installment would show a few examples of

the featured photographer�s work�enough to establish a common language

with the reader, anyway�but would primarily consist of text to help

the reader understand how the photographer ticks. (I like JPCaponigro

fine, but instead of interviews I think he should be used more for

analysis�seemingly his main interest; he could oversee #2, above�and

of course for digital subjects.) This kind of series would let View

Camera revisit the excellent photographers it has featured before, but

without covering the same ground.

 

<p>

 

In terms of understanding the "working photographer" series suggested

in #5, maybe it would help to think about what the average View Camera

reader would talk about with the profiled photographer if they were to

spend a day together (perhaps driving around scouting and not even

taking any pictures). For example, many successful photographers claim

they�re just "naturals" or that they�re "self-taught," when in fact

(except for those who through trial and error figure out how to use a

camera that washed up on their desert island) we are all immeasurably

influenced in the way we see by countless other photographers. When I

see a photographer�s work, I want to know how s/he got there, what

they�re trying to say, and where they�re going with it. But I don�t

want gaseous philosophy or excessive artsy-fartsiness of the kind

that�s in art students� "artist�s statements" at a gallery; I�m

talking nuts and bolts, what works and what doesn�t in real life, in

trying to be creative and good and fresh every single day. Reality

photography, if you will. Examples of the kinds of questions I wish

these working photographers would address:

 

<p>

 

"How did you get into photography? How did you get into LF

photography? Which photographers did/do you find inspiring? Even more

importantly, what was it about these photographers and/or their work

that you find inspiring? (EWeston�s compositional eye, for example, or

Ansel�s subject matter, or Minor White�s "spirituality") What don�t

you like about these mentors� oeuvre? Which photographers (especially

dead ones) do you think are underrated? Overrated? How did you develop

your own eye? Do you have a lot of photography books? Collections,

technique, themes/places, or monographs? What books do you prize most?

What other forms of artistic expression are inspiring to you? (Cezanne

landscapes? Bach fugues? Bob Marley CDs?) Do you get creative blocks,

and if so how do you overcome them? Do you like the "post-production"

(darkroom/computer) part of the image-making process or would you

rather be in the field? Do you usually know you�ve got a strong

picture as soon as you click the shutter or do you find you make new

discoveries, including cropping, in the darkroom or on the light

table? When in the darkroom or at the computer do you like to work

alone for hours on end until a project is done, or do you revisit it

frequently on different days to see it anew? At these times do you

listen to music or work in silence? How do you balance family and

personal life with your photography? If you�re married, how does your

spouse affect your work? Do you take vacations or trips without

photographing? Do you have other hobbies? Do you have other artistic

outlets (e.g., piano, sculpture, woodworking)? Why do you use the

specific photographic tools that you do (monorail vs. folding, metal

vs. wood, etc.)? Do you have any little tips about technique,

composition, focusing in low light, keeping dust out of your holders,

etc. that are by now instinctive to you? How do you transport your

stuff around, both between locations and on location? Does your

photography depend more on walking to places or flying/driving there?

How do you find subjects? How do you get gigs? Any horror stories

about failed assignments, through your fault or others�? Are you a

good bookkeeper and marketer, or do you rely on others for help in one

or both of those areas? How do you approach a familiar subject? An

unfamiliar subject? Do you think you work best in an unfamiliar

environment (e.g., a place you�ve never visited before) or with a

subject you know inside and out? In a new location, do you start

shooting right away to get your first impressions down, or are you a

slow starter, wanting to soak in the place for a few hours or days

first? Do you use any tools to help you visualize a scene before

setting up your tripod or before shooting (viewing filters, polaroids,

digital p&s)? How do you organize files of your past work? How do you

preserve spontaneity in your photography (or don�t you, valuing

contemplation instead)? Who is your best critic? Whom do you "run your

images by" for comment? Do you rely on your spouse/significant other

more for positive support or for clear-headed critique? Do you

socialize more with other photographers or with people outside the

field? Do you do other kinds of photography or use other formats? How

do you say something new about a familiar subject? Why do you use

black-and-white? (Or why do you use color? Or when do you use which?)

What would you say you bring to a project that other photographers

don�t? What makes a photograph "yours"? Who is your audience? Do you

see the consumers of your photographs as different from yourself? Why

should others care about your work? Why should they visit your

website? What are your goals? How is your eye or your work evolving?

Was there a breakthrough time in your aesthetic development, a Eureka

moment? Did you realize it at the time or only in retrospect? How do

you feel about your early work? When you see your new work as a viewer

(on exhibit or in a publication), do you notice the work�s

shortcomings or its strengths? Do you teach? Why or why not? If you

were teaching, how would you find a middle ground between "just do

what I do" and "do your own thing"? What do you think

intermediate-to-advanced students are looking for? What�s the best

format for teaching? Have you participated in workshops where you were

not the teacher? What advice would you give to beginning photographers

about learning to see? What do you see as the future of LF

photography? Of photography in general? Of the still image? What about

the role of digital manipulation; does it appeal to you or not?"

 

<p>

 

You get the idea. I apologize for going on so long, but then that�s

the beauty of free bandwidth (and the drawback of no co

...no copyeditor!).

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

 

<p>

 

<><><><><><>

I know this might seem like a turn to popularism or might even

seem lowbrow, but how a bout a critique of large format photos readers

send in. A few of the Brit magazines have this feature and one in

particular is very honest and sometimes cheeky - all for the beenfit

of the photographer and the reader, of course.

As I still consider myself a "learner" in the field of LF, I'd really

like to see more "how to" articles, especially on

printing/processing. I must admit to being a little disappointed with

the contents of some issues but on the whole I am eternally grateful

to Steve Simmons for the publication. MY BIGGEST GRIPE IS THE TIME

IT TAKES TO REACH US HERE IN THE UK!!!! Regards Paul