Nature's Best - photo magazine may finally be getting off the ground.

[glen_johnson]

Bob, kill this if you consider it to be inappropriate.

 

<p>

 

Nature's Best is a photo magazine that has been trying to get off the ground since 1995. It continues to be sponsored, in part, by Nikon. At one time, it was also set to be sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation, but they pulled out last year, leaving a gaping hole. Somehow, the title continues to be copyrighted by the National Wildlife Federation, but it is now licensed to Image Hunter Publishing, located in McLean, VA. Stephen B. Freligh is now identified as both the Publisher and Editor in Chief.

 

<p>

 

The magazine contains very few advertisements, and its focus is on the pictures, rather than on the camera gear. The three issues I have are primarily comprised of images. The editorial content is pretty thin, but the images are excellent. They do give the obligatory camera, lens, f/stop, shutterspeed, and film (when these data are known), but that's their only concession to the equipment craze.

 

<p>

 

The magazine is scheduled to appear quarterly, and it looks like it is finally ready to actually make a go of it. Newstand copies are priced at $5.95 each, but you can get a 4 issue subscription for $19.97 by making your check made out to Image Hunter Publishing and sending it to:

 

<p>

 

Nature's Best Magazine

P.O. Box 10070

McLean, VA 22102-9518

 

<p>

 

Their phone number is (703)759-6575, and their e-mail address is given as IHPUB@AOL.COM

 

<p>

 

The Spring 1998 issue will carry an interview with four "Frog Fanatics," travel to Indonesia for a dramatic underwater adventure, experience intimate "Eye to Eye" encounters with animals around the globe, look into the Earth's most biologically rich nations, and review an elegant portfolio form a well-known husband and wife photography team - at least that's what Feligh says in his "resurrection" letter.

 

<p>

 

Who knows, Nature's Best might even be a good outlet for some of your photographs. I'm just posting this as an informational piece in case frequenters to the nature forum might be interested.

[bobatkins]

It's perfectly fine here. Useful information.

 

<p>

 

Can't say I've been waiting to hand over <em>my</em> money though.

I think I've reached an image saturation point. What with all

the photo magazines, nature magazines, cable TV nature programs,

the Discovery Channel, the magazines that WWF, NWF Audubon and the other

organizations I donate to send me, plus National Geographic both in print

and on TV, the last thing I need is yet another source of pictures and

yet another magazine to try to find storage space for!

[glen_johnson]

I agree we may have reached the saturation point. One of the reasons I like this magazine is that they don't have the M&M, Adorama, B&H, Smile, etc. ads, and they aren't giving you a bunch of "how to" articles. I suspect that they would probably honor someone like Dan's desire to not give details on a location. It looks like a classy operation so far, and this is probably why they've had trouble getting going. They may never reach the level of circulation that something like Outdoor Photographer can reach, just because they aren't catering to the newbie with an N90s and 28-300 zoom.

[jim_everett1]

What I perceive from Glen's description of the "resurrection" letter is that this might be a magazine intended more for the general populace than the nature photograhper. I hope so. I doubt that another photographer's magazine would do any more than dilute the subscription pool and garner subscribers from other nature photo publications.

 

<p>

 

I personally would like to see a PJ style nature magazine along the lines of Look, Life, and Colliers (sort of like National Geographic Traveller), but targeted to the eco-tourist and/or conservative adventure travel baby-boomer generation. Maybe then we could sell more pictures rather than just buying from each other (i.e., through magazine purchases). On the other hand, those magazines didn't fare too well. It will be interesting to see how Nature's Best pans out.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Thanks Glen for the information. Sounds like it is worth checking out. If the market wills it, the magazine will survive. Though the cynic in me thinks that there is more money to be made selling to the techo freaks than the photo-artists. I hope I am wrong.

 

<p>

 

One error though. The newbie you mentioned is actually a buyer of an EOS A2E with 21-400mm f/4.6-7.8 lens, Flash with USM Zoom motor, and eye controlled manual rewind. :)

[jeff_hallett]

I do not understand why some folks on this forum consider giving

information with an image such as, camera, lens used, exposure

data and film used as being contributory to the equipment craze.

We need to to know how an image is made and the circumstances under which it was made. This is not equipment craziness, it it an integral

part of the process of nature photography. Not everyone out there puts the damn thing in program mode and shoots!

[glen_johnson]

Jeff, I'm not sure what your point is. How does my comment relate to folks who put it on program? Mind you, I would not be critical of folks who do this, even though I know that many of the photo.net regulars, including Philip, feel that someone is tainted if they use program mode.

 

<p>

 

Can't you look at an image and tell whether it was shot at f/2 or f/8 or f/16? Does it really help to know that your guess of f/8 was wrong and that it was really shot at f/5.6? Much of the data that is provided in these magazines, is guessed at by the photographer, after the fact. Sunny 16 is routinely used to back guess the exposure, and depth of field is routinely used to back guess the aperture. It is a pretty standard approach, even for folks who shoot on manual, but don't keep notes.

 

<p>

 

Does it really help to know that the person used a Nikon, or a Pentax, or a Minolta, or a Leica, or a Canon, or Contax? I don't think it does, except to feed this blind brand loyalty that seems to dominate the thinking of photo enthusiasts. For example, above I made the reference to Philip's proverbial dickless yuppie carrying an N90s and 28-300 zoom (I use an N90s myself regularly), but I was corrected in a subsequent post by someone who was offended by the reference to the Nikon and had to substitute Canon.

 

<p>

 

Finally, is it really all that difficult to tell if something was shot with a macro, normal, wideangle, telephoto, or super telephoto lens? Does it help to learn that your guess that it was done with something like a 28mm was wrong and that it was really done with a 24mm? Who cares?

 

<p>

 

Yeah, yeah, I know... nearly everyone cares. I just don't get it.

[bobatkins]

I agree with Glen (for once!). I think the technical data given with

shots of mostly useless. The equipment doesn't matter at all, since

you can't really judge image quality from a magazine reproduction.

What good is exposure info? Whether

the shot was taken at 1/250 or 1/500 or 1/60, so what 99% of the time? Ditto for

aperture. Even if they did matter, they are almost certainly an

educated guess by the photographer, since most don't actually

record exposure info for every frame!

 

<p>

 

Nature Photographer sometimes take this "info" to a new level by

specifying the tripod and head used!

 

<p>

 

The only possible use for the info is by someone who says "Hmm, the

photographer used a Canon Eos-1 with a 300/2.8L on a Bogen 3221

tripod with a B1 head. I think I'll go out and buy that outfit so

I can take similar pictures". In which case, maybe every article

should be accompanied by a complete list of everything in the

photographer's bag!

[don_baccus]

Nature's Best isn't really oriented to the photographer, but rather to those who appreciate great nature photography. They sent me two copies of an issue last year in response to a query letter.

 

<p>

 

I don't think it really competes head-to-head with the magazines Bob listed. It's not about conservation or issues. It's not a photographic "how-to". It's not a nature photography travel rag. It's about the photography, a celebration of good nature shooting.

 

<p>

 

Unless, of course, they've changed it since.

 

<p>

 

And the photography in the issue I saw was FIRST RATE. Depressingly good, to be honest! :)

[matthew_francey]

While it is true that not everyone "puts the damn thing in program mode and shoots", it is also true that virtually no one goes out with a huge book of pictures and conducts an exhaustive search to find the best exposure(*). Using a lightmeter is faster, and weighs less.

 

<p>

 

Ditto with lens selection: it would actually be faster to exhaustively try every lens you own than to search a huge database of images to pick the "best" focal length. Of course, anyone who has taken more than, say, 10 pictures intuitively knows what lens to pick.

 

<p>

 

Right now, I might agree in the film department. But thats because I am still conducting my trials, griding through E100SW at present (if anyone cares). In a few months, I may find the information either (a) obvious (as in the cases above), or (b) useless, since I already have made my selections.

 

<p>

 

Another area I might agree to techie details is filtration. But once again, experience on my part may well have me writing missives, such as the previous two, in an exasperated tone, tossing my hands into the air and crying for sanity in an insane world. [Resistance is futile, Mr. Atkins and Mr. Johnson! :-]

 

<p>

 

(*) Reports of people wandering the landscape, searching for Ansel Adams', et al, "tripod holes" notwidthstanding. [i still can't believe those stories!]

[jeff_hallett]

I cannot believe my screen re: the philosophy here. To not feel that exposure data is not important....... I will comment no further save to say we can eliminate the brand names if that makes you all happy,

but not aperture(DOF), shutter speed(motion), sun angle, use of tubes,

teleconverters, film type and speed etc. These are not important?..

BULLSHIT!!!!!

 

<p>

 

"their only concession to the equipment craze" that Glen mentioned

was the reason I responded at all to this thread.

[bobatkins]

Other than just being "sort of interesting", just what use is

all the technical data? Do you go into the field carrying a

stack of magazines, look for a shot like the one you are about

to take and copy the data used in the magazine? Of course not.

 

<p>

 

Just what do you do with the technical data except look at it and

think "yes, that looks about right" (which means the photographer

made a reasonable guess!).

[mark_van_bergh]

If you are an experienced shooter with a good understanding of the equipment it takes to get the shot and quality you want, then the technical info, particularly lens focal length and use of converters, extension tubes, etc. is not likely to be helpful (though I admit to still finding it interesting, if only for the relatively few appearances of non-Nikon or Canon gear). However, if you are relatively new to the field or not as well educated on these issues, such as people who constantly inquire about using a 28-300 zoom for wildlife photography, or whom Bob seems to be regularly providing information about the merits and demerits about certain types of equipment, or film (slow vs. high speed) then the technical info can be informative about what it takes to get certain types of images. Frankly, I think the publication of such data has led many people to buy Canon or Nikon gear simply because they see "that's what the pros use," regardless of what camera might be the best for their personal needs.

 

<p>

 

However, as for exposure data, since it is more than likely a guess or "made up" information anyway, it is usually worthless (if you don't believe that its usually made up, you should have attended the recent NANPA conference and heard John Shaw and some others answer the question how they remember the data. The answer - they don't).

 

<p>

 

As for Nature's Best, personally I find the photography that appears in it far superior to any other photography magazine, at least those published here in the U.S. I'm glad it's back and wish it well.

[peter_may]

I agree that technical data that is reconstructed from often hazy memory is pretty worthless, but for accurate information such as focal length, film type, filters, etc., how is anyone harmed or offended by the inclusion of such data? For those advanced enough to figure it out on your own, ignore it. For those who are learning, this info may be real useful. This is supposed to be a forum for learning and improving skills, right?

[glen_johnson]

Peter, Jeff, others who want the data.... obviously you're in the majority, or the magazines wouldn't slavishly include it, even when it is guessed after the fact.

 

<p>

 

I know that people actually devour the data and think they are learning something. In fact, if these data weren't included, then people would probably not recognize Nature's Best as a photo magazine at all, since it doesn't have the obligatory "how to" articles, the obligatory "which is better, APS, 35mm, or digital" articles, or the obligatory equipment reviews, or the much sought after NYC advertisements. This may all change as they struggle for market share.

 

<p>

 

I don't mind the inclusion of the data. It is more or less harmless, except that it distracts beginners and photo equipment nuts from the real issues. I thought people would like to know that Nature's Best isnt' a traditional magazine, so that's why I made the comment that I made. Some may like this, others may not. For me, Nature's Best is the only "nature photography" magazine that has ever made me actually want to have a subscription.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Like many I find most technical data to me meaningless for my purposes but, since I am free to ignore it I don't mind it being there.

 

<p>

 

What I would like to see more of is information on what filtration was used, any special lighting equipment or adjustments made, use of extension tubes, and so on. I think there is more to learn from this information than simply what f-stop and shutter speed were used.

[mark___1]

I am in the crowd of supporters for Nature's Best. For awhile I was unsure if I would ever see another magnificent issue again.

 

<p>

 

The latest winter issue is no different from the rest, vibrant and exciting nature photography at its best. The quality of the paper and photos in this magazine remind me a lot of what Ocean Realm is to marine and underwater photography. I will have no problem finding that extra space for one more magazine. If anything, this one should shove aside many of the others.

 

<p>

 

Mark Graf

[jeff_hallett]

As I stated before, I enjoy seeing how others made their images.

Often I will see some shots on this forum that are very similar to some I have made and is interesting to see if that photographer used tubes, filters, a zoom or fixed focal length lens, film type and

yes exposure data if available. I do not need to see this data to

assist me in producing better images but to enjoy more than for

just the image itself. Esthetics if you will, I guess. More than

just a pretty picture. Maybe some of you are so far above the rest of

us that you can automatically determine how the shot was made or

don't care. In any case I do not care to argue the point any further

as we all apparantly have our mindset on this.....so be it. Glen, I

hope the magazine is a success as it sounds like something pleasantly refreshing from OP and Shutterbug. Do you know yet if it will this be in the racks of Barnes & Noble soon?

[bobatkins]

I'm not against technical info, in fact some limited info is

interesting (if not always instructive). However, when I look

at a painting, I don't wonder what size brush the artist used,

and when I look at a sculpture I don't really care what chisel

was used or how big the hammer was.

 

<p>

 

<b>Tech Note:</b> Typed on a Microsoft Keyboard to a Zeos 90 MHz P90 System

running Windows 95 with 32MB RAM, 1024x768 display and 4GB hard-drive space, connected

to the internet via a 10/100 Ethernet link to a UNIX based proxy

server.

[glen_johnson]

Thanks, Bob.

 

<p>

 

I've placed my order for the new gear. I've always wondered why you were able to do so much more with a computer than I could, and now that I know the technical details, I'm sure it will only be a matter of a few weeks before I catch up. :-)

[sean_hester]

bob. you should really stay away from "consumer" equipemnt like a P90. a pentium II 233 (or 300 if you can afford it (have you thought about used?)) is really needed to do acceptable computing. i'd also recommend 64MB of ram. ;-)

[lynwood_lord]

Well, after perusing the local Border's yesterday, I just did a text search and up comes this nice string of lobs about the pertinence of technical data in magazines. The magazine I picked up, Lens Work Quarterly, just made me so incredibly happy. I've seen issues of it before and the B+W work in it is just GORGEOUS (there's a shot of windmills and rolling hills and a cloud-masked sun in the issue I looked at that made me gasp). I guess MY POINT is that most nature mags., or ones that regularly include features on nature photography, are just so overwhelmingly CHEESY. I mean middle-class, bland, technophile, and superficial (do the biggies save their good work for books?). A naive point: do the photographers in something like Lenswork work exclusively in B+W, or is their work just digitally masked to grayscale stuff? And, since I'm not universally familiar with ALL magazines that accept nature work, is there a magazine, like Lenswork, that is majoratively nature-oriented that discusses the aesthetics, the concepts, the ART (in a basically nonsnob, non-NY manner) of photography? It's just soooo true: who gives a rat's ass what equipment, shutter speed, etc. is used. It's that GASP that counts. There are more than enough sources to gather the merits of a 300 f/4 lens around...

[glen_johnson]

Amen. I haven't seen any nature magazines that were up to Lens Work Quarterly. Nature photography, as it is presently practiced by most people, doesn't lend itself well to this kind of approach. There are exceptions, but they are genuine EXCEPTIONS.

[bobatkins]

I've heard of a German publication which is supposed to run high

quality nature images. The name was something like "Fotography

Drausen". I'm sure this is a severe mangling of the true name,

but it may be close enough for someone to recognize! I think it

means something like "Outdoor Photography", but I doubt (hope) it's

not related to OP!

 

<p>

 

I've never seen a copy, so I can't comment on the content myself.

[anthonty_debase]

I recently surfed LensWork's site. http://www.lenswork.com/best0.htm

They had some wonderful images of the American Camp in my home state. Between their images and Dan's lovely work I have decided to take a few rolls of black and white up to Alaska this summer. So now I have the very pleasurable task of shooting several rolls of different black and white films to get myself ready for another pleasurable experience. No wonder I like this hobby.