B&W Magazine (USA) now accepting digital work

david b · Apr 25, 2005

On page 9 of issue 37, the editor writes about why his magazine will now accept digital work.

For some reason this upsets me a bit. B&W was the last magazine that did not accept digital work. Although he states it will not become a how-to magazine, it is still disappointing. Especially since they received such a huge response from their last "call for entries".

I guess I will just wait it out and decide later if I can spend my $8 somewhere else.

Sean · Apr 25, 2005

Can you post the highlights from the article? Seems very odd they would go from staunch traditional to YADPM (yet another digital photography magazine).. Thanks for the heads up.. will make it easier when I see the big 2 page Epson printer spread on the insert..

Andy K · Apr 25, 2005

Damn. I was going to subscribe, guess now I won't.

Jim Chinn · Apr 25, 2005

I guess this is to be expected. If I begin to see the digital camera and printer advertisements I will assume that: A, they are struggling financially and need the revenue to keep going, or B, they have compromised their original position in order to make a bigger profit.

i will not renew my subscription when it ends, but will purchase off the newstand for a few issues. I have a feeling that they will go down the path of other magazines where they begin to dedicate the contents of whole issues to pixelography.

I found out with other magazines that when they have 6 issues a year and 2 or more are 90% or more digital, there is no longer a cost savings to subscribing. I'll just sit with a cup of copy at Borders and read the one or two articles that might have some interest for me and then put it back on the shelf. I'll buy some film with the savings.

photomc · Apr 25, 2005

This is interesting, since B&W (US) is really aimed at collectors (really not at photographers) not sure I understand why anyone is surprised. Many galleries have gone down this path already, and THAT is the market of B&W (US). I don't see them becoming over-run with digital, because lets face it, how many B&W digital photographers are out there doing work that collectors are after? Maybe they feel that they are not getting enough new work from film based photographers, or maybe there is a market shift...or maybe they just 'think' they need to do this and it could just be economics..they need the money from digital ads..so goes another good publication...Thank goodness for Emulsion!!

Lee Shively · Apr 25, 2005

That's too bad. I've been buying every issue of this magazine for a couple of years and meaning to subscribe-I haven't seen Issue 37 yet. While I don't always like every portfolio presented or have that much interest in the new record-breaking prices paid for photographs at auction, B&W has always been associated with film-based photography. It had that edge over Lenwork although the reproduction of B&W was nowhere near as good.

I guess I'll hold off subscribing for a while longer to see what happens.

argus · Apr 25, 2005

Why bother? It's calld B&W magazine, not APUG magazine.

Are all of you to elitist to deny that a digital print can be fine art too?

G

david b · Apr 25, 2005

For me, this has nothing to do with what is considered fine art these days.

I just prefer B&W work that is made in a darkroom.

jovo · Apr 25, 2005

photomc said:
This is interesting, since B&W (US) is really aimed at collectors (really not at photographers) not sure I understand why anyone is surprised. !

At the AIPAD show in NYC this past February, I asked a couple of dealers about their interest in offering digital work as well or instead of the traditional work that permeated that show. The answer was unanimously a matter of: "When people want to buy it, we'll show it and sell it to them." Such is the course of "progress".

I don't have my copy of B&W to refer to here at work, but as I recall there were still some caveats regarding how much of the process was to remain traditional. I'll have to check when I get home, but I don't remember being shocked, surprised or even especially disappointed.

johnnywalker · Apr 25, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
I'll just sit with a cup of copy at Borders and read the one or two articles that might have some interest for me and then put it back on the shelf. I'll buy some film with the savings.

Apparantly book/magazine store owners in Japan had a lot of trouble with teenagers with camera/cellphones taking pictures of articles in magazines, and putting the magazine back on the shelf.

This brings up an image of an APUGer in a trench coat lurking in magazine stores with a digital camera waiting to copy analogue articles in magazines.

By the way, the British Black and White is not a wholly analogue magazine either.

david b · Apr 25, 2005

"By the way, the British Black and White is not a wholly analogue magazine either."

And this is why sometime I buy it and sometimes I don't.

James Bleifus · Apr 25, 2005

I haven't seen the issue but this is a very interesting turn. I know in issue 36, pages 8 and 9, in the announcement of their single image photo contest B&W that they were going to accept digital but I consider that seperate from the magazine and those images aren't for the magazine. They're going to be a seperate book. I don't believe their submission window opens for another year so for them to announce now that they are accepting digital for the magazine is unexpected.

And, as an avid magazine reader, I'm jealous of all of you folks who receive magazines before me.

Cheers,

James

david b · Apr 25, 2005

I picked mine up on the newsstand.

david b · Apr 25, 2005

From the editor:

First sentence: "It probably comes as a big surprise...."

Then a little further down:

"artist are using digital technology to create photo-based images that must be seen as extensions of classic surrealism."

Baxter Bradford · Apr 25, 2005

Bearing in mind how long their lead-time is, that is lots more in the current format.

The other thread on magazines has indicated how few and far the good ones are. I shall not dismiss on a matter of principle.Before the toys go out the pram, I shall look to see whether the image quality is affected and ratio of advertising to content is swung into reverse. Personally, I don't seek out every issue, since now they have quite an air of familiarity.

I don't see why the two processes shouldn't live side by side, so long as magazine presentation is objective and not evangelical for either cause. I think that I have learnt enormously by seeing what is possible by experts in either field. UK B+W seems to strike this balance happily, with the guidance of Ailsa. Of course not every editor achieves this, either by design, or otherwise.

Aggie has Emulsion Magazine for the wet-side covered for those that see things differently.

B-3 · Apr 25, 2005

david b said:
I just prefer B&W work that is made in a darkroom.

Hi. No offense intended, and I can see your point as far as buying an actual print... but, for an image published in a magazine, why does that make a difference? Even if the photographer is all-analog, every magazine now has digitial steps in the publishing process. (And even if they didn't - it's still a magazine, not a print intended for your wall.) We can all learn from any source, provided we keep our minds open.

Cheers - Happy Shooting and Printing!

Bruce

John Koehrer · Apr 25, 2005

My scrip just expired & I haven't yet decided whether to renew. When their requirement that entry to their competition was to be CD or DVD ONLY. I was really dissapointed in them.
Will buy it off the news stand. Same as with Photo Techniques.
I thought they had so many submissions they couldn't keep up. Over 700 in their last call.

jmailand · Apr 25, 2005

david b said:
On page 9 of issue 37, the editor writes about why his magazine will now accept digital work.

For some reason this upsets me a bit. B&W was the last magazine that did not accept digital work. Although he states it will not become a how-to magazine, it is still disappointing. Especially since they received such a huge response from their last "call for entries".

I guess I will just wait it out and decide later if I can spend my $8 somewhere else.

They have already showed digital work in the past. I have every issue but issue one. I can remember at least 2 or 3 (there may have been more) digital contact print portfolios. Most were just using photoshop as a dodge and burning tool. I do remember one though that was pure photoshop wizardry and wasn't what I would consider Photography, be it analog or digital. It was just the last year and a half or so that they were pure analog.

James Bleifus · Apr 25, 2005

david b said:
I picked mine up on the newsstand.

I've looked. It hasn't arrived at my neck of the woods yet. I think northern California is the last place to receive magazines in the US, and subscriptions are even worse.

I was speaking to Henry, the publisher of B&W, about 18 months ago and he mentioned that being non-digital was hurting him financially. This came as a surprise because I assumed the opposite. Ironically I started as a reader of B&W when it was analog and I was digital. Now I'm a reader when it's digital (or mixed) and I'm analog. Hmmmm.

Cheers,

James

Joe Symchyshyn · Apr 25, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
I'll just sit with a cup of copy at Borders and read the one or two articles that might have some interest for me and then put it back on the shelf.

This is something I wouldn't be bragging about doing... Why not just steal the magazine instead?

joe

Jorge · Apr 25, 2005

Well sure, it is all economics...Epson is not going to take a full page ad in an all analog magazine. Many of the photographers who buy the little "market" ads are ink jet printers, I am sure he was under pressure by them to showcase ink jet prints. Face it, we are a diminishing breed. There are more photographers going digital, making ink jet prints and abandoning analog everyday. Ad to this the fact that they are flat out lying about their reasons to change and why ink jet prints are "better" and you can see that this is an inevitable outcome.

The way I see it, I welcome this change. The work of those of us who will stick with all analog and have learned to control our material will become more "rare" as time goes by and hopefully will become more valuable.

B&W magazine wants to sell advertising space, they really dont care if a collector buys an ink jet print that will fade in a few years or cannot be displayed continuosly for fear of deteriorating.

I say dont be dissappointed, welcome digital and ink jet prints, it can only be better for those of us who remain making real prints.

david b · Apr 25, 2005

I completely agree with you Jorge.

I've always thought that the more popular digital becomes, the more the wet darkroom processes will be considered "art".

Ed Sukach · Apr 25, 2005

david b said:
I completely agree with you Jorge.

I've always thought that the more popular digital becomes, the more the wet darkroom processes will be considered "art".

I agree as well. You make an extremely good point!!

Jim Chinn · Apr 25, 2005

Borders and Barnes and Noble have absolutely no problem with anyone sitting for hours drinking coffee and reading magazines or books. As a matter of fact, I subscribe to or purchase far more periodicals because I can sit down and determine if it is something I would want to get on a long term basis.

Also I am not going to buy a magazine if there is one or two articles in it I want to read. Photo Techniques should be happy I even open the cover fo their rag to read David Vestal and the occasional analoge article. If Borders was concerned they would keep all the periodicals under lock and key behind the registers like cigarettes.

I always look through View Camera, and the UK Black and White before I decide to purchase. 90% of the time I will pruchase the View Camera issue even after I have read most of it at the book store. But for the occasional issue that is mostly digital I will read the stuff I am interested it and then leave it. I buy most of the issues of the UK magazine, but find some issues that basically re-hash various technical matters that are already covered in books and magazine articles I already have.

I will probably still pick up LensWork (subscription) and B&W with their digital content as long as they do not become proponents of digital at the expense traditional photography. When they start running articles or essays about the superiority of digital in a shameless move to help promote advertisers and sponsors I will order a double espresso, skim through them and put them back on the shelf.

Joe Symchyshyn · Apr 25, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
Borders and Barnes and Noble have absolutely no problem with anyone sitting for hours drinking coffee and reading magazines or books. ...I will order a double espresso, skim through them and put them back on the shelf.

To each his own... Seems more like taking advantage of the system to me, but that's just my opinion.

joe

B&W Magazine (USA) now accepting digital work

david b

Sean

Admin

Andy K

Jim Chinn

photomc

Lee Shively

argus

david b

jovo

Membership Council

johnnywalker

david b

James Bleifus

david b

david b

Baxter Bradford

B-3

John Koehrer

jmailand

James Bleifus

Joe Symchyshyn

Jorge

david b

Ed Sukach

Jim Chinn

Joe Symchyshyn

B&W Magazine (USA) now accepting digital work

Admin

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency