A moment of silence for Popular Photography! 80 years!

[removed account4]

Won't miss it..I do miss the juicy ads for LF equipment in shutterbug...lots of great deals!

+!
i got a graflex slr from leon ( had been running an ad in sb for like 30 years? )
and a omega enlarger several years before shipped from AZ in 13 boxes.
those ads were fantastic !

 

[1L6E6VHF]

I still browse through the old Modern Photography and Popular Photography I've accumulated (many of them from before I was born - bought at camera shows and stores)

I preferred Modern over Popular. Their reviews of film stock, cameras and lenses answered the same questions I would ask.

I remember getting the last issue of Modern, with the last issue announcement, in the mail, hours before my wedding.

Once Popular had Modern out of the way, it seemed that the articles in Popular on any new products used copy straight from the manufacturer's promotional materials.

 

[Cropline]

Those Popphoto $5 yearly subscription rates were a good indication the end was coming. No surprise. I had a couple subscriptions in the 90's and one in the early 2000's. I liked the lens test data and their former in depth film articles. My latter subscription was gifted to me. I quickly outgrew that magazine and digital tech didn't help their cause much for me. I was still shooting film professionally until the end of '08. Probably have another go around w/it.

 

[Peter Schrager]

+!
i got a graflex slr from leon ( had been running an ad in sb for like 30 years? )
and a omega enlarger several years before shipped from AZ in 13 boxes.
those ads were fantastic !

There were really some great finds in shutterbug...and lenseS just forever...like for very little money...photo porn!

 

[RPC]

I remember getting the last issue of Modern, with the last issue announcement, in the mail, hours before my wedding.

I too liked Modern and still have the last, July 1989 issue, keeping it as a memento.

 

[dmr]

For me, print photo mags died with the passing of Herbert Keppler.

I'm so glad I was able to say a word to him personally on the web site before he passed. I always looked forward to his columns.

You know, what if we at APUG joined forces and created an (analog) successor of sorts to Popular Photography?

Hmmmm ... Analog Photography or maybe Film Photography? Why don't you do a GoFundMe or something? I'm sure you would get plenty of volunteer writers and photographers.

And no, it's not out of the question for a print publication to spin off from web media. The Knot is a good example (wedding industry) which began on line and now has a print edition too.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I, too, liked Modern Photography better. I especially liked Jason Schneider's "Camera Collector" column. I know be went from Modern to Pop in 1987.

 

[Mark Minard]

For me, print photo mags died with the passing of Herbert Keppler.

I loved that guy. Each issue of Modern Photography from 1981-1983 was like a bible to me. First stop when a new one arrived was always "Keppler's SLR Notebook."

 

[Arklatexian]

Because a paper magazine can be read by members of apug, none of whom own or can use a computer.

Not to mention those of us who don't have and refuse to have a computer in our bathrooms and don't tell men that is "old fashioned". People still read in there.......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

So you know with certainty that no owner of a smartphone ever carries the phone into the bathroom with them, and that they never have logged into APUG while there?!

I stand corrected though it will be a mighty cold day in a very hot place when I take my "smart"phone in there and destroy the "peace and quiet" demanded of the place.......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I still browse through the old Modern Photography and Popular Photography I've accumulated (many of them from before I was born - bought at camera shows and stores)

I preferred Modern over Popular. Their reviews of film stock, cameras and lenses answered the same questions I would ask.

I remember getting the last issue of Modern, with the last issue announcement, in the mail, hours before my wedding.

Once Popular had Modern out of the way, it seemed that the articles in Popular on any new products used copy straight from the manufacturer's promotional materials.

I too preferred Modern Photography over Popular. It seemed to me that if you subscribed to Popular for three years or longer, every third year you read the same "how to" articles that you had read the first year. It was great, however, for beginners in photography. Once you had some experience, not so great........Regards!

 

[OptiKen]

Yes, ads, ads, ads, like most magazines. But I enjoyed it years ago when the back of it was filled with ads of the big photo stores. There were many more back in the day, some with pages and pages of inventory, and you could find some pretty good buys.

The key words here are 'years ago'.
Years ago print magazines were the only source of information - new gear - gear and film reviews - tips and tricks - etc.
Budding young photographers no longer have to wait a month to get the information they need - nor do they have to go to the library to research old articles.
Instant internet - instant gratification.

 

[Vaughn]

Someone set me a gift subscription to Popular Photography -- got one issue and then the next month got Popular Science with a note saying sorry -- no more Pop Photo...

 

[wiltw]

I loved that guy. Each issue of Modern Photography from 1981-1983 was like a bible to me. First stop when a new one arrived was always "Keppler's SLR Notebook."

Great respect for a fine writer and editor in the field of photography, during his long tenure at Modern Photography (1950-1987) and a great guiding light for the objective reporting that went into a great publication on the topic, and later at PopPhoto although it later eroded to a thin disguise for product promotion

 

[removed account4]

and FRACTION magazine

and they just released their 100th ! issue...

 

[Richard Man]

The major problem with a printed magazine is... the cost! Not just paying for content (that could be "free" if there are enough volunteers), printing (which can be handled by Blurb or the like), but also shipping. If you let Printed on Demand handle everything, then the purchaser pays expensive shipping charges. So you are looking at $12-$15 per issue. No one would want to pay for that...

 

[ME Super]

The major problem with a printed magazine is... the cost! Not just paying for content (that could be "free" if there are enough volunteers), printing (which can be handled by Blurb or the like), but also shipping. If you let Printed on Demand handle everything, then the purchaser pays expensive shipping charges. So you are looking at $12-$15 per issue. No one would want to pay for that...

Maybe not pay $12-$15 USD/issue, but what if the online edition could be had for a few bucks a year, and once a year a print-on-demand issue comes out with the contents of the past year's online content? So your off-line archive would cost you about $1/month's worth of material. Now *that* might be worthwhile.

 

[Richard Man]

Maybe not pay $12-$15 USD/issue, but what if the online edition could be had for a few bucks a year, and once a year a print-on-demand issue comes out with the contents of the past year's online content? So your off-line archive would cost you about $1/month's worth of material. Now *that* might be worthwhile.

That could be a viable idea... it will probably still be expensive for the yearly archive. May be split the difference and make a semi-annual archive...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I, too, liked Modern Photography better. I especially liked Jason Schneider's "Camera Collector" column. I know be went from Modern to Pop in 1987.

So did I, I learned a lot of useful technical things. The first was about using the Jiffy Night Calculator for available light photography. But that was back in the day that they wrote honest equipment reviews.

 

[wy2l]

Popular Photography... they never saw a camera they didn't like! (i.e., never a negative review, even a camera that was a POS).

 

[Mark Minard]

Popular Photography... they never saw a camera they didn't like! (i.e., never a negative review, even a camera that was a POS).

Yeah it got pretty bad. We sold it at Ritz Camera when I worked there in the mid 90's and I could barely stand to look at it.

 

[cmacd123]

Popular Photography... they never saw a camera they didn't like! (i.e., never a negative review, even a camera that was a POS).

Typical of all magazines, they not only don't want to offend an advertiser, but they depend on the suppliers to provide a continuos supply of new products to "review", in other words borrow for a week and try out and report.

The reviews would never DIRECTLY say something bad, but would describe a feature as "Unusual" or that they user needs to be aware of something, or that brand X has taken a different approach than most of the rest of the industry... All keywords for "what were the folks at Brand X thinking when they designed this POS"

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

All old photography magazines showed me that Leica, Linhof , Cooke, Goerz, Ektar, Protar, Glass negatives, Dag, Autochrome, Dye Transfer, HC110 , diafine, ABC Pyro, P55, engraving , tiffdruck , reddish magenta , thicker magenta, was better. I prefer nowadays , Strad magazine , Art News , Burlington, Stereophile , Yacht, Woodenboat, Rudder, Sailing World, NG, Geo and libgen.io and sci-hub.cc, arxiv. They say 50 000 000 peer reviewed articles are in sci hub. And add equal amount of books at libgen. who reads another photo article ?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

But were there really many POS cameras after about 1970?

Some had more features than others or may have been easier to use in some respect, but the only camera that I knew which had earned a bad reputation quickly was the Petri SLR.

Over time, issues with (for example) a Rollei SL35, or a Leica R3, R4 would surface - but a magazine reviewer using those cameras for a month or so likely wouldn't've had any problems.

 

[dmr]

But were there really many POS cameras after about 1970?

Wasn't that the era of the Fotron camera?