B&W (US) with Epson ink ads!

[PhotoManiac3000]

I sifted through their latest annual, which wasn't as bad as I everyone made it out to be. I would've paid $7.95 for it, but not the full $12.95. That's much too expensive to look through an assortment of black and white images.

So then I also received my subscriber copy of B&W December issue, when in the back I found a double-page spread for Epson UltraChrome K3 ink and Epson printers.

I thought they were a magazine for collectors? AND I thought they weren't going to accept ads from anything relating to be digital?

Does anyone know if LensWork, Blindspot, Silvershotz and the other photo magazines accept digital? I think I read something in Focus's 4th issue preview where he was no longer going to accept digital submissions..I'm not sure, I am getting a copy on Tuesday.

 

[david b]

In a word...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Mongo]

B&W just change their policy recently...they'll now accept digital. There was an esssay somewhere out on the web by a photographer who seemed to feel that he single-handedly changed their policies...a search of the APUG archives should turn up a thread about it.

LensWork makes no bones about accepting digital, and Brooks Jensen is now selling only digital prints from his web site. (Although the vast majority of the portfolios in the magazine are traditionally printed, at least so far.)

I think you'll see more and more of this. There are some very talented people out there who choose to output their work digitally. I won't make this into a digital versus analog thread by judging that decision, but suffice it to say that the magazines are accepting digital submissions at an increasing rate.

And, anything that's in a magazine has gone through a digital step anyway, so you're not seeing the full potential of the original silver image when you see it reproduced in a magazine. Apparently the ultimate example of this is the work of Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee...their work looks like crap (to me, anyhow) in magazines but people who have seen it in person always comment on how wonderful it looks in the original prints.

 

[Sean]

I think you'll see more and more of this. There are some very talented people out there who choose to output their work digitally.

If that's what they want.. but the day I have to 'output' art will be the day I find something else to do..

 

[Dave Parker]

If that's what they want.. but the day I have to 'output' art will be the day I find something else to do..

Sean LOL

I can think of something I "Output" but I certainly would not consider it "Art"



Dave

Dead Link Removed

 

[Dave Miller]

Sean LOL

I can think of something I "Output" but I certainly would not consider it "Art"



Dave

Keep it long enough, and someone will pay good money for it.

 

[Changeling1]

Clever advertising by Epson, et al

So then I also received my subscriber copy of B&W December issue, when in the back I found a double-page spread for Epson UltraChrome K3 ink and Epson printers.

I thought they were a magazine for collectors? AND I thought they weren't going to accept ads from anything relating to be digital?

Does anyone know if LensWork, Blindspot, Silvershotz and the other photo magazines accept digital? I think I read something in Focus's 4th issue preview where he was no longer going to accept digital submissions..I'm not sure, I am getting a copy on Tuesday.[/QUOTE]

Haven't you noticed how inkjet printer paper makers have come up with all sorts of creative names for their paper and ink lines? Next thing you know they will be naming a paper "Rembrant's Choice"!

Getting digital output accepted as true art has become the bane of existence for digital products purveyors. They will stop at nothing as the naming of their products so clearly point out. They are heavily targeting the children, of course, so in a few years young people won't have any idea what a negative is or that typing on a computer isn't real art. This is free enterprise (progress) at its very best.

 

[David Brown]

... They are heavily targeting the children, of course, so in a few years young people won't have any idea what a negative is or that typing on a computer isn't real art. ...

Oh, much as we would like to, I'm not sure we can blame all of this on digital. People historically haven't known real art.

case exhibit #1: "sofa sized paintings by starving artists, only $10!!!!"
case exhibit #2: Thomas Kincaid

As usual, I could be wrong ... :rolleyes:

Cheers, y'all.

 

[Changeling1]

David-

You mean all those black velvet glow-in-the-dark paintings of Elvis are not really true art?

Shazaaaaaam! ;- )

 

[Dave Parker]

Boy you don't see that often, a double post....slid through the filters!!

 

[Eric Rose]

I think their market research showed them that the main purchasers of B&W are indeed photographers, not collectors. Money talks. Yu can't take your principles to the supermarket and buy bread with it. To bad.

 

[firecracker]

I don't know much about the U.S. digital market right now, but in Japan, the big digiral product producers/manufactures have featured well-known photographers on their ads, their faces are consisitently the same, predominantly Japanese. So, it seems if you grow up and grow older seeing their faces appear on almost evey ad of a product that makes you curious like a new inkjet printer, if you will get really sucked into and start to lose your own sense of questioning about the product.

From what I've seen, that's the magic between you and the ad as you start to embrace the product without a doubt. However that doesn't work for me because I'm still wearing the same clothes from years ago that has the smell of fix almost permanently.