B&W (US) Annual 2005 - A Surprise and some Thoughts

photomc · Oct 25, 2005

Decided to treat myself to the B&W(US) Annual 2005 (today's the 52nd anniversary of my birth). Treat? The price was $12.95, and since I already have a subscription (which does not include the annual) it was a bit much IMO. The first impression I had was, this is a substanial (BIG) issue. There are A LOT of photographers work shown...this is a good thing IMO. There are 224 pages, making up 16 categories, with a gold/silver/bronze awards, followed by several merit awards.

Now, may have missed someone, but not one APUG member is listed (out of 8500+ members) so if someone is there, please let us know...after all with all of the nicknames used it is possible did not know you by your real name.

The next thing that hit me was, many of the images - well just did not float my boat. There is some very good work, don't misunderstand me, but much of it was very good. But some of the work seemed to be me to either be a copy (homage) to an image from one of the masters or just, well fuzzy (does that make sense?).

Would be interested in hearing comments from others that have seen this. BTW, the plus side of the issue is there are that many more photographers out there using the same film/paper and chemistry we all use...and that is a good thing.

doughowk · Oct 25, 2005

I was also surprised at lack of APUG members in the issue. The only two names I recognized were Michael Smith & Paula Chamlee.

Nige · Oct 25, 2005

why are people listed in the 1st place?

photomc · Oct 25, 2005

Sorry Nige, listed may not be a good term...what was meant, was names associated with eac person photograph...being a competition, there were Gold, Silver, Bronze and merit (worthy to publish I guess) assigned. Each photographers name is under their respective print.

Bill Mitchell · Oct 25, 2005

Happy Barfday, you old fart. For the first several years of publishing, I picked up B&W and paid for it without looking at the contents until I got home. Now, I haven't bought a copy all year, everything seems to be "me too," or "mein Gott!" I wasn't aware of the Annual. I'll check Barnes and Noble and hope that it's on the shelf.

rogueish · Oct 25, 2005

I picked it up and thought the same thing.
There is some great photographs in there, but there is (IMO) some so-so work as well. Perhaps I'll enter in 2006 All well printed, but some of the subject matter and style I didn't really care for. Have never liked the the blurred, out if focus photos.
All said, I'll likely still pick up next years.

BWGirl · Oct 25, 2005

Well, Happy Birthday, Mike! You are such a kid! (I'm a year older). I'd sing to you if I were there! (lucky you)

I hate out-of-focus prints. I browsed through that issue in Barnes & Ignoble the other day... not impressed. I guess I am just more impressed by the photos I see here, or on some of our members' websites. I still think about & see in my mind some of the great prints from the Texas Workshop 'crew'. And of course... I spend a bit of time every day staring at my prize possession.

But I am SO glad you brought this up... I just figured it was my lack of experience that made me look at that stuff and shake my head. Phew....

Jim Chinn · Oct 25, 2005

I love B&W Magazine but I have to say I was pretty underwhelmed by the images in the annual. I have looked at it in the bookstore but I don't think it is worth the money. I don't remeber specific examples but I remeber only a handfull of outstanding images, the rest while technically very good seemed to lack any real passion.

I think there was a winter landscape I really liked and a couple of still lifes. One of the horse images was very interesting. Most of it seemed pretty derivitive.

This is the problem when presenting single images from a large number of photographers. If I could see a group of images from each person I would probably see the work in a different light. A lot of it has to do with the view of the selection committee. In most cases, safe and cliche seemed to be their guiding principal for selection. I know most of this work was submitted by readers and amatuers, but I can't help but believe out of all the prints submitted there was not a much stronger group of work available.

I cannot attest to the technical quality of prints, but I have to say that I have seen quite a bit of work on APUG that is much more captivating IMHO.

david b · Oct 25, 2005

I am so glad this has been brought up. I too thought, "that photo made the cut"?!??

I did not buy it because of the price. My limit for a magazine is $11.95 (ridiculous).

Jim Chinn · Oct 25, 2005

It also seemed that they went out of the way to try to represent all kinds of different styles, regardless of quality. Like Jenette pointed out you had your out of focus/out of kilter prints, there was a faux solarization print, your Jerry Uslemann clones, etc. Maybe they were trying to display a wide breadth of the medium but it did not work. I would have been more likely to pay the money for half the number of images if they were outstanding images.

Next time they need to bring in someone like Brooks Jensen to edit the selections. At least he has a pretty good handle what makes great photography.
There is probably a hundred people on APUG who could have put together a better selection.

As Steiglitz told many artists who submitted work, "Technically excellent, artistically rotten."

Better shut up now, I might want to submit a slot canyon image for next years publication.

Gerald Koch · Oct 25, 2005

I too was unimpressed with the annual. There was not enough good photography in it to warrent the price. The same can be said for the last few issues of the magazine.

photomc · Oct 25, 2005

Bill Mitchell said:
Happy Barfday, you old fart...

Thanks Bill, guilty as Charged....old fart(itis) has set in.

BWGirl said:
Well, Happy Birthday, Mike! You are such a kid! (I'm a year older). I'd sing to you if I were there! (lucky you)

Thanks Jeanette, so hows the water over there...a year later
Figure I'm just another year closer to retirement

As to the subject, glad to hear I'm not the only one that felt this way. Thought maybe it was the old fart in me coming out, but while there are some very good works in the issue, for an annual I expected much better. Never did understand that whole out of focus thing, it works in the hands of people that know what they are doing. Maybe we need an APUG annual for 2006, complete with published copy so the rest of the world gets to see what we do.....any thoughts?

Daniel Grenier · Oct 25, 2005

doughowk said:
.....The only two names I recognized were Michael Smith & Paula Chamlee.

Actually, that is what struck me about the issue - the fact that MAS & Paula Chamlee entered this "contest". I just found it odd that photographers of their stature and reputation would enter a photo contest - any contest. It's a bit like Michael Schumaker entering the local go-kart race. Isn't it?

I too put the mag back on the shelf as I couldn't justify the price for what I'd get.

david b · Oct 25, 2005

Maybe we need an APUG annual for 2006..

Isn't this supposed to be Emulsion ?

Kerik · Oct 25, 2005

Daniel Grenier said:
Actually, that is what struck me about the issue - the fact that MAS & Paula Chamlee entered this "contest". I just found it odd that photographers of their stature and reputation would enter a photo contest - any contest. It's a bit like Michael Schumaker entering the local go-kart race. Isn't it?

I've always had the impression that MAS and the publisher of B&W were kind of cozy, so I'm not surprised. After all, Smith/Chamlee has probably spent more on advertising in B&W than any other individual photographer. In fact, it seems to be the contest shouldn't even be open to B&W's paid advertisers (not including the numerous small ads in the back).

I also passed on the issue after checking it out in Borders. Although, I love soft focus and out of focus work when it's done well. Corner to corner sharpness gets boring after a while... especially when that seems to be the point (no pun intended) of the image.

Michael A. Smith · Oct 25, 2005

Paula and I are embarrassed to have been part of a "contest." We must not read very carefully. We never enter juried competitions or contests of any sort whatsoever. We thought this annual was going to be like the US Camera Annuals from the 1937 to 1964. In those annuals the top photographers of the day, along with a number of relatively unknown photographers were represented. Adams and Weston, etc., usually had work in them. Those annuals were terrific. When I was starting out I learned a lot from them. In the B&W Annual we expected to see the names of many of the leading photographers of today. We were sorely disappointed.

TimVermont · Oct 25, 2005

I was very excited to see a big fat issue of B&W on the bookstore shelf, but deeply disappointed by the selections and gimmicky feel. Count me as another non-purchaser.

scootermm · Oct 25, 2005

happy Bday mike....

I as well put it back on the shelf. just didnt do much of anything for me at all.

Dinesh · Oct 26, 2005

I must admit to being someone who purchased the issue. I thought that the reason that I didn't enjoy many of the images was because I have not been printing for a very long time. Thank you for helping me to realize to trust my gut.

MurrayMinchin · Oct 26, 2005

Dinesh Wijesinha said:
I must admit to being someone who purchased the issue. I thought that the reason that I didn't enjoy many of the images was because I have not been printing for a very long time. Thank you for helping me to realize to trust my gut.

Hi! Welcome aboard APUG!! I'm so impressed...your first post and you're a subscriber already

Murray

P.S. I pick up B&W and flip through the pages about twice a year...too much bellying up to the gallery trough for my tastes.

Jim Chinn · Oct 26, 2005

Off topic but I second the thanks for the subscription Dinesh.

photomc · Oct 26, 2005

Thanks Matt...

Well it would appear that we all know what an annual is NOT, to bad we can't find one of the older annuals like MAS mentioned. Saw one several years ago, but have not seen one in years...will have to see if any are still around. Sure would be a good thing for our friends at Emulsion to consider (hint, hint)

lee · Oct 26, 2005

belated birthday wishes Mike

lee\c

photomc · Oct 26, 2005

Thanks Lee...it was a good day.

lee said:
belated birthday wishes Mike

lee\c

Aggie · Oct 26, 2005

Well Mike, the first issue which Alan is busily laying out, has the contest winners from APUG. I feel like I am 4 weeks over due to give birth at this point. It is just when people have those darn everyday jobs that intrude on our project that gets in the way. I hope the membership here will like what we are doing with it. I will hold my breath, and wait and see. I will make no claims since you are the judges of what you like and don't like.

BTW Mike, happy B-day from someone who is just 6 days older than you are.

B&W (US) Annual 2005 - A Surprise and some Thoughts

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency