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

jovo · Oct 26, 2005

When Henry Rasmussen puts together an issue of B&W based on not only his own predilictions, but also on the curatorial skills, and good taste of prominent gallery owners and collectors who, by their choices, also reflect the market worthiness of the work they publish...well that's one thing. When Mr. Rasmussen and his staff take it on themselves to jury an array of new work (and some not so new) and present it unilateraly, that's another thing altogether. I hope to get a chance to see this issue eventually, but I don't have the same expectations for it that I do for one of the regular issues. (I wonder about Brooks Jensen of Lenswork as well...I'd love to see some of the stuff he chooses NOT to publish. That entire magazine is based on his estimation of the quality of the photographs in each issue. Usually I agree that the work he publishes is pretty well chosen, but I realize I've no idea of what the unpublished submissions look like and wheter I'd agree about whether or not they were worthy.)

PhotoManiac3000 · Oct 26, 2005

I actually bought the annual edition of B&W, I was at the newsstands trying to look for more resources for photography and saw this very large issue. I was running out of time and couldn't really spend time reading it.

With all of the holidays. the cooking and cleaning I still haven't had time to look through it.

As long as we're reviewing photography magazines, I received an E-Mail from the folks over at Focus. It seems they've been delayed in printing, but I was given an online version of what the collector's edition had in it. I haven't had time to look at it, but I must say, what a stunning cover. One thing I did notice was the lack of street life photography, which is my absolute favorite type. One question? Who is Stephen Perloff and why is he so important?

photomc · Oct 26, 2005

In order to be fair, the current issue just arrived and in it there is an ad stating that the annual is also available for $9.95 USD, $13.95 Canada, and $15.95 for the rest of the world by calling them 805.474.6633 (the price of s/h is included). The offer ends 12/31/2005. No, I have no interest in the B&W (US) publication, but since I started the thread and we mostly agree the price was a bit high, thought that others might be interested at the lower price. At least you could 'see' what it is we are discussing.

Bill Mitchell · Oct 27, 2005

I made the trip across town to B&N just to see the ANNUAL. It's even worse than these previous posts would indicate. In fact, it made me wonder if B&W really IS dead?

Eric Rose · Oct 27, 2005

How many APUG'ers actually even entered? I know I didn't. Not much for contests myself.

To be honest, I rather liked the issue. As with most things artistic, not everythng was my cup of tea, but even the stuff I didn't care for showed some original thought.

Birthday wishes are of course extended. Havng rolled over the 50 mark myself sometime ago, I am actually getting excited about B-Days again. Figure I'm beating the odds now given all the crazy things I've both done and am still doing.

David Brown · Oct 28, 2005

lee said:
belated birthday wishes Mike ...

Late good wishes from me, too! (Just got back this AM)

FWIW, I'm older than you (and Jeanette and Aggie ... ) <sigh>

BUT not by much !

Cheers,

David

reellis67 · Oct 28, 2005

Michael A. Smith said:
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.

I collect those old publications for those very reasons. I bought it mostly because I was hoping that, as you stated above, it would be more like the annuals of old...

- Randy

reellis67 · Oct 28, 2005

photomc said:
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)

At the risk of generating competition for these, I can help you find them if you are interested in collecting them. I have a growing collection in my library right now, and they are great fun to read.

- Randy

photomc · Oct 28, 2005

Hey David, welcome back!! Hope you had a good trip...Thanks for the good wishes...they are always appreciated.

David Brown said:
Late good wishes from me, too! (Just got back this AM)

FWIW, I'm older than you (and Jeanette and Aggie ... ) <sigh>

BUT not by much !

Cheers,

David

photomc · Oct 28, 2005

Thanks Randy, would be interested...hope we don't generate to much interest though
You can PM me if you prefer....

reellis67 said:
At the risk of generating competition for these, I can help you find them if you are interested in collecting them. I have a growing collection in my library right now, and they are great fun to read.

- Randy

Bill Mitchell · Oct 28, 2005

In the 1941 US Camera Annual there is a photograph by a young photographer of a little kid on a tricycle with a squirt gun. The accompanying blurb states that he has won a contest with another photo of this same boy, and he thinks that he should probably stick to child photography in the future. His name: Peter Gowland. LOL!!!!

Alex Hawley · Oct 29, 2005

Eric Rose said:
How many APUG'ers actually even entered? I know I didn't. Not much for contests myself.

I thought about entering but something about the scans required for submission scared me off. Like maybe my crummy scanner. Doubt if I would have made the cut anyway.

Anyhow, I bought the Annual yesterday and like most, was a bit disappointed but not totally so. I got the impression from Rasmussen's intro that they are trying to locate and promote some of the emerging talent, not just sticking with the same known quantities that get published over and over again ad nauseum. Kind of breaks up the lock-step of the photo magazine world. If that is the aim then I say its commendable.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

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

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency