B&W Magazine (USA) now accepting digital work

[dtomasula]

If bookstores didn't want you to read while you're drinking your coffee, why do they all put their cafes about two steps away from the magazine section?

They have absolutely no problem with you reading their books or magazines while you're drinking your Latte. Now, the publishers, on the other hand, may see it differently.

 

[Jorge]

Bookstores are using sound marketing techniques. If you go out to buy a pair of pants you are allowed to try them on first. If the magazine has good content it will be bought. Countless of times I went B&N,took a magazine, read it cover to cover in their cafe, and then pay for it.

If the publisher thinks it is unfair, then they should pack their magazines in plastic, as many of them do.

 

[Andy K]

Dunno if I'd want to buy a book that had been read by someone drinking and eating and then put back on the shelf. I like my books and magazines in 'as new' condition.

 

[gareth harper]

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

Fortunately B&W Photoraphy magazine here in the UK hasn't made any such silly distinction. I've bought most issues since it came out. The majority of issues have featured digital photographs and/or articles on digital techniques.

They have published the odd 'digital is not real photography' etc type letter in their letters pages, and I have to say thankfully given it short thrift in the editors reply.

 

[gareth harper]

"If you go out to buy a pair of pants you are allowed to try them on first."

We cetainly don't do that in the UK! Lordy lordy.

 

[Andy K]

:
:
:
:
j

 

[James Bleifus]

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.

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.

That's my attitude, too. From a marketing standpoint (and I don't like sounding this cold) it gives us an opportunity to differentiate our art and craft from what most others are doing. One of photography's biggest challenges as an art has been that anyone could do it. Few people can do it well, but anyone can take a photograph. Now when the masses take pictures their whole process is sure to be different, all the way down to not using film. If people like your work then they love to hear about the craftmanship that has gone into it also. People love hearing about what I do in the wet darkroom much more than about what I was doing with Photoshop. There's a mistique about the darkroom, about LF cameras and, now, about film. Plus our prints look a hell of a lot better than those inkjet ones.

Digital is doing us a favor. Yes, we're going through some transition but in the long run that's a good thing.

Cheers,

James

 

[blansky]

I'm not sure that people realize that subscriptions can not pay for a magazine. I doubt it covers distribution.

It's real revenue is advertising. Since digital is the cash cow of the moment, advertisers will advertise in magazines that sell their products in editorial and illustration.

The only part subscription numbers come in, is how much the magazine can charge per inch to advertisers. The more subscriptions the more they charge. Thats the barometer.

To find a nitch magazine that covers a tiny aspect of the market can only be accomplished by very high subsciption rates and a crazy dedicated soul willing to live a frugal life.


Michael

 

[Rlibersky]

It will be interesting to see what happens. "Photo Vision" had the same mission and then went digital. I think it folded quickly after that.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I guess the real question is whether digital B&W prints have become collectible. Some have--particularly those more "neo-surrealist" works that really take advantage of the possibilities of digital (of course those things are possible by analogue means--stripping, multi-exposure, masking, sandwiching, retouching, etc--but digital makes them more accessible). I don't know, though, that the magazine will change to digital in a wholesale manner. I think traditional processes will still dominate the B&W collectors' market for a while yet, except for those works that could only be done (easily) with digital.

Color is another story, but when _B&W Magazine_ starts publishing color, then they've really lost their mission.

 

[gareth harper]

"I don't know, though, that the magazine will change to digital in a wholesale manner."

I can't say I've ever seen a copy of this magazine. But going purely by the title I be very surprised indeed if it did.
B&W Photograhy in the UK has never had a 'no digital' policey, it has regular digital features, both pictorials and technical articles but the bulk of the material published is film based. I don't see that changing for a long time if ever. Having said that it's more of a photographers magazine than a collectors magazine, though considering the high standard of the images published I would bet it's purchased by a few picture lovers as well as snappers.
What could be interesting for the collectors though are some of the hybird processes. Digital or film capture, imported or scanned into photoshop to produce a computer printed negative for printing on fibre paper. That's scary, but that's technology for you, you can't hold it back.

 

[Sean]

If they are anything like the other mags they will be chock full of digital ads, yet all portfolio work will be traditional. Just look at outdoor photographer.. 10 digital ads per page but for some strange reason all of the portfolios and reader images are velvia, provia, etc... kind of funny if you ask me

 

[atenlaugh]

As an employee of Barnes and Noble, I will say this:

We recommend that people view before they purchase, and if they do buy something that they don't like/need, they'll be given a refund in full.

On an employee level, we want people to be happy with their purchases, and don't mind it when they hang out. I don't believe that the economic side of the corporation is wholly concerned with that, but they have their reasons: more purchases of books are made, and coffee, especially (the café makes more money than any of the other departments).

Still, to each his own. However, it's something the bookstores themselves (at least the B&N bookstores) endorse.

-Nate

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

joe

 

[James Bleifus]

If they are anything like the other mags they will be chock full of digital ads, yet all portfolio work will be traditional. Just look at outdoor photographer.. 10 digital ads per page but for some strange reason all of the portfolios and reader images are velvia, provia, etc... kind of funny if you ask me

The ads in B&W are different than other magazines, though. Since the magazine is geared towards collecters the ads are primarily by photographers or galleries I doubt we'll see anything like Outdoor Photographer because there's very little equipment advertised. That's one of the reasons I like the magazine. The ads are as good as the portfolios (like someone else in this thread I've been reading since issue 2 and I'm still kicking myself for not buying issue 1). If the ads were to change so that they were primarily equipment it would change the whole feel of the magazine and I would be very surprised and disappointed.

Cheers, James

 

[Jim Chinn]

You mean I am not supposed to take the plastic off the magazine?....Uh oh.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If they are anything like the other mags they will be chock full of digital ads, yet all portfolio work will be traditional. Just look at outdoor photographer.. 10 digital ads per page but for some strange reason all of the portfolios and reader images are velvia, provia, etc... kind of funny if you ask me

Yes, I've noticed this as well. When they did a landscape feature about a year ago, they featured three photographers shooting film LF, and one guy shooting 35mm, maybe who had switched to digital if I remember correctly.

 

[Rlibersky]

Originally Posted by Sean
"If they are anything like the other mags they will be chock full of digital ads, yet all portfolio work will be traditional. Just look at outdoor photographer.. 10 digital ads per page but for some strange reason all of the portfolios and reader images are velvia, provia, etc... kind of funny if you ask me"


I like to point this out to my digital friends. Just to annoy them a little

 

[Lee Shively]

As James said, B&W ads blend well with the contents of the magazine. I can't imagine color glossy Epson, HP or Canon ads in the magazine. It has always had a certain elegance that would be compromised severely. B&W using color ink? That's scary.

 

[Jim Chinn]

If I find a pixelgraph interesting and moves me, then the process involved does not really matter. I think that is why Lenswork has done a pretty good job of presenting digital portfolios. The quality of the work and subject matter are what is important.

So from a purely artistic and creative point of view I will live with the change. In retrospect, the two things I like most about B&W is the presentation of work by many photographers from the past who I have never heard of. For example the work of Lou Stouman in issue #36. I also think they do an outstanding job of presenting in depth articles on the history and variious movements of photography. Articles on groups such as the Visual Dialogue Foundation, American Bauhaus, Analoge Photography Users Group, American Modernists as well as specific features on work and history overseas. And in what other magazine do the advertisements sometimes equal the regular content. I guess some issues I could buy it just for the articles alone. (Kind of like Playboy.)

 

[waynecrider]

Doesn't bother me, I never buy it anyways, but do enjoy looking at the pic's.