Brooks Jensen on niches and APUG

bjorke said:

.....

What's distressing about Lenswork's expansion of podcasting is its one-sidedness, a factor that overpowers its technological possibilities. In Web-2.0-land, web presence is a kind of conversation. Yet as Lenswork has expanded its podcasting, it has restricted almost all possibility of conversation -- removed the forums on its Dead Link Removed made feedback awkward (oddly, "podcast" is not an available item in the feedback topic pulldown menu) -- essentially pursuing a 20-century media paradigm: that of the central microphone that emits all the opinions available. Small wonder that in recent podcasts Brooks sounds increasingly like he's talking to himself, given that opportunities for other voices have been shuttered.

...

Click to expand...

bjorke,

While I share some agreement with your comments generally; I find the link you cited above to be counter-intuitive.

It is an "archival site" and itself no longer provides for "communication". It simply indicates that "the conversation" is continuing elsewhere.

More to the point of this thread it is obvious that Jensen has a vested interest in preserving the limited readership of his own publication (and any web-based offshoots thereof ). His complaint about "niches" is the result of a self-inflicted wound. He's chosen to take his publication into digital photography and now fears the loss of his subscription base that might result. Jensen suggests that some of this might be because APUG and the independently-produced Emulsion (that was conceived and brought to fruition from some folk here) have, independently, created a "niche" for traditional photographers.

Well, I certaily hope they have done so. Because where else is there anymore for traditional photographers?

I care not for Jensen or his podcasts. Nor for anyone else's podcasts for that matter. Photograhy is a visual medium. This site and Emulsion fulfill a need some of us have to maintain our faith in what we believe is the best form for producing visual imagery.

...Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

-Robert Frost

As a long time subscriber to both Lenswork and Extended, I don't think Brooks' decision to take the magazine into the digital world will cause a great loss in readership. For me it is the quality of the product that counts. Digital or film-based (I hate the use of the word analog) Lenswork is still one of the best produced photo magazines on the market. Extended on the other hand is seriously lacking. Especially the video additions. The video segments of the darkrooms of photographers are by far some of the worst I have seen in ages. Brooks may know photography but he has not learned the basic shots of video (establishing shot, medium shot, close up.) Watching 20 minutes of a wide shot of Brooks and a photographer standing in a darkroom is not compelling nor informative. Brooks would do his subsribers a better service by spending more time putting quality into Extended and less time on the Podcasts.

Walker

Thanks for the feedback -- again!

Well, again, thanks for all the feedback. I really do appreciate it and read all the posts.

For what it's worth, if you are interested:

- The videos were never intended to be any other than "Brooks does home movies." You are absolutely correct in that I know nothing -- and I mean that -- about video production. I am a still photographer and am solely dedicated to that, so I'll leave the world of professional-quality video production to those who are passionate about it. For LXT, we will only have our little "amateur" videos and hope some folks find something in them of interest. Not everything has to be top drawer -- or, can be! Especially when we are trying to create a media publication that is affordable -- a little under $5 per issue for subscribers. This ain't no Hollywood budget -- not for serious video production!

- As to Bjorke's comments, I would suggest that the Web 2.0 (I'm not really sure I know what that is!) conversation is the conglomerate of all web stuff together. We -- that is LensWork, which is essentially me -- are just one small component in the aggregate. I applaud APUG, and Emulsion, and all the other forums and publications because they all share my passion for photography. And, one of the great things about photography is that it is such a large tent that there is more than enough room for all kinds of ideas, all kinds of opinions, publications, styles, etc. Just look how much conversation has been generated by my little podcast on this one forum alone! I would have killed for these kinds of exchanges and contact with other photographers when I was starting out in the 1970s. Those of my generation, remember how isolated we all were back then and what a great thing it was to attend a workshop and meet other people who were as passionate about photography as you were? Now we have such contact every day, several times a day via forums like APUG. How marvelous!

- I've been accused several times on APUG of "going digital." I'll say it again for those who care for the facts: LensWork is not and never was about equipment. We don't know what equipment was used when we review portfolios. We don't look at either equipment nor resumes when we select work for publication. We only look at images and try our best to select the work we think is interesting enough to deserve an audience. Period. Curiously enough, of the last 47 portfolios we've published in the magazine dating back to March of 2005, only 11 of them have been digital -- a whopping 23%. So much for our "going digital." Seriously, is this too much?

- I appreciate your concerns about our readership numbers. Strange as it may sound, we've never been driven by readership numbers. If we were, we'd do equipment reviews, naked babes, and did I mention equipment reviews? We'd have famous people and movie stars on the cover. We would never have started a photography magazine that didn't publish photographs for the first 11 issues. Certainly we'd publish mostly famous photographer's work -- the "usual suspects" -- whose established name recognition would attract as broad an audience as possible. We don't. We've always operated our business under the assumption that there are people out there (a niche!) who appreciate the kind of photography we do and would be interested in a publication that offered the highest quality reproductions technology can produce. We must be right, at least a little bit, because for over 13 years now we've increased the number of subscribers every issue without fail, 70 issues in a row. Not a bad track record, even if I say so braggingly myself. Our sincerest thanks to all of you appreciate what we do. And, for those of you for whom LensWork is not a good match for your interests, we know you'll find Emulsion, or Aperture, or Shots, or View Camera, or CameraArts, or BlindSpot, or ZoneZero, or Photo-Eye, or MagnaChrom ,or f8 , or Outdoor Photographer, or PhotoTechniques, or Focus, or B&W or the other B&W, or something that will offer you what LensWork does not. (Sorry if I left someone out! When I was growing up photographically there was Popular Photography, Modern Photography, Aperture and Shutterbug and, er, well, that was pretty much about it.)

- Podcasts. I'm having a lot of fun with them. It keeps me thinking. I can talk about little things that aren't destined for the magazine. I like offering something for free to those who have a restricted budget and podcasting is something I can afford to offer for free. I like to think I'm somehow helping people think about their own photography and help their own creative process. I have about 5,000 people who are listening on a regular basis from all over the world and from the volume of enthusiastic and supportive emails I receive, I think I'll keep doing them for a while. I've now done 365 podcasts over three years and have concluded one undeniable truth: You cannot offer 365 opinions about something without occasionally ruffling someone's feathers. Which I occasionally do. This seems to leave two choices: don't ever say anything that might offer an opinion because it might upset someone who disagrees, or, hope people will have the good sense and perseverance to pick and choose from what you offer and find something that is useful to them and for which they are grateful -- the rest they can ignore. Obviously, I choose the latter.

I wish I was more disciplined to post more frequently and my comments wouldn't be so long or rambling. Sorry I got long-winded again -- a flaw my friends all know is unfortunately incurable.
Brooks

lenswork said:

Well, again, thanks for all the feedback. I really do appreciate it and read all the posts.

......

- I appreciate your concerns about our readership numbers. Strange as it may sound, we've never been driven by readership numbers. If we were, we'd do equipment reviews, naked babes, and did I mention equipment reviews? We'd have famous people and movie stars on the cover. We would never have started a photography magazine that didn't publish photographs for the first 11 issues. Certainly we'd publish mostly famous photographer's work -- the "usual suspects" -- whose established name recognition would attract as broad an audience as possible. We don't. We've always operated our business under the assumption that there are people out there (a niche!) who appreciate the kind of photography we do and would be interested in a publication that offered the highest quality reproductions technology can produce. We must be right, at least a little bit, because for over 13 years now we've increased the number of subscribers every issue without fail, 70 issues in a row. Not a bad track record, even if I say so braggingly myself. Our sincerest thanks to all of you appreciate what we do. And, for those of you for whom LensWork is not a good match for your interests, we know you'll find Emulsion, or Aperture, or Shots, or View Camera, or CameraArts, or BlindSpot, or ZoneZero, or Photo-Eye, or MagnaChrom ,or f8 , or Outdoor Photographer, or PhotoTechniques, or Focus, or B&W or the other B&W, or something that will offer you what LensWork does not. (Sorry if I left someone out! When I was growing up photographically there was Popular Photography, Modern Photography, Aperture and Shutterbug and, er, well, that was pretty much about it.)

....

Click to expand...

I think I am now better able to understand the reasoning bjorke had in mind by including the bookshelf of a defunct camera magazine in his post.....

Some thoughts on "Lenswork" and other venues...

One of the reasons I enjoy reading through each issue of Lenswork is because it is all about interesting images, beautifully printed, in an easy to read size for a magazine.

As a film photographer (for more than 45 years), my true calling is about film and traditional darkroom printing, but I, like many of you who have been carrying this thread, want to experience the joy of other photographer's IMAGES that are compelling and trying to tell me something.

I find Lenswork refreshing and am always looking forward to my latest copy of this magazine, knowing that, for the most part, there won't be much detailed information about the whole 'equipment' aspect of the photography I am seeing on the magazine's pages. I love talking about equipment with other folks, but there is something to be said about just LOOKING at the images, and responding to the visual impact they should have on you, without getting bogged down with the details of this lens or that filter and whether it was LF or MF or Minox, or DSLR, etc.

I learn a great many things from studying other photographer's work in print (on web pages, too, but print media is more faithful to what I think images are all about!), and hopefully, some of what I learn translates into useful tools that help me become a more interesting photographer than without that outside influence.

I subscribe to many magazines that bring the art world to my mailbox, and each one has a point of view that I can respect and perhaps embrace, without having to be a purist about it in particular. I am interested in INFORMATION about what is out there, different points of view, different ways of "seeing", different approaches to what might be an old cliche of a theme.

So, thank you Brooks, and Camera Arts and Aperture and B&W Magazine, and all the other publications that are doing something out of love for the media, trying to publish the very best quality imagery withing the limitations of printing costs and the available numbers of subscribers and sponsors.

Keep my magazines coming! I am hungry for each next issue!

Evan

evansol said:

One of the reasons I enjoy reading through each issue of Lenswork is because it is all about interesting images, beautifully printed, in an easy to read size for a magazine.

...

So, thank you Brooks, and Camera Arts and Aperture and B&W Magazine, and all the other publications that are doing something out of love for the media, trying to publish the very best quality imagery withing the limitations of printing costs and the available numbers of subscribers and sponsors.

Keep my magazines coming! I am hungry for each next issue!

Evan

Click to expand...

I would have to second Evan here. After subscribing to (and purchasing) LensWork since 2000, I always enjoy looking at the IMAGES. Isn't this what photography is all about????

A little typo correction is in order here...!

"...trying to publish the very best quality imagery withing the limitations of printing costs..." should have been, obviously, WITHIN


Sorry folks, I typed that on my laptop late at night, and didn't catch that mistake... I'm usually good at spelling and finding typos in what I write... this one slipped by!

Evan

lenswork said:

- I've been accused several times on APUG of "going digital." I'll say it again for those who care for the facts: LensWork is not and never was about equipment. We don't know what equipment was used when we review portfolios. We don't look at either equipment nor resumes when we select work for publication. We only look at images and try our best to select the work we think is interesting enough to deserve an audience. Period. Curiously enough, of the last 47 portfolios we've published in the magazine dating back to March of 2005, only 11 of them have been digital -- a whopping 23%. So much for our "going digital." Seriously, is this too much?

Click to expand...

I think you really are missing the point Brooks. A lot of people DO NOT CONSIDER digital good quality - that is the complaint.

roteague said:

I think you really are missing the point Brooks. A lot of people DO NOT CONSIDER digital good quality - that is the complaint.

Click to expand...

With respect, this is a view not shared by the world of photography at large, particularly the professional sector, and which you really cannot attempt to impose on anyone outside of the confines of APUG. Furthermore, the attitude:

We don't know what equipment was used when we review portfolios. We don't look at either equipment nor resumes when we select work for publication. We only look at images and try our best to select the work we think is interesting enough to deserve an audience. Period.

Click to expand...

is very typical of the art photography world and in my view is the only way to go.

Regards,

David

David H. Bebbington said:

With respect, this is a view not shared by the world of photography at large, particularly the professional sector,

Click to expand...

The world at large also considers McDonalds as food. A lot of professionals, not all, only care about making a sale, not about obtaining the highest quality.

My point was about why a lot of people complain about the magazine, not about the absolute merits of digital photography.

Then there is the small voiceless wacko lefto pinko liberal radical fringe lunatic element weirdo minority that dont consider digital to be photography at all.

Like me.

Brooks wrote:

lenswork said:

.....

- I've been accused several times on APUG of "going digital." I'll say it again for those who care for the facts: LensWork is not and never was about equipment. We don't know what equipment was used when we review portfolios. We don't look at either equipment nor resumes when we select work for publication. We only look at images and try our best to select the work we think is interesting enough to deserve an audience. Period. Curiously enough, of the last 47 portfolios we've published in the magazine dating back to March of 2005, only 11 of them have been digital -- a whopping 23%. So much for our "going digital." Seriously, is this too much?......

Click to expand...

To which you replied:

David H. Bebbington said:

.....

is very typical of the art photography world and in my view is the only way to go.

Regards,

David

Click to expand...

David,

What I find to be a bit of a stretch is that, given his years of reviewing portflios, Brooks seems to indicate that he cannot see a difference b/w a film image and a digital one.

One need not know the type of equipment being used to see the difference between the the images they produce.

Getting back to the original topic, I don't see evidnece that just because someone prefers to work with traditional photographic methods and processes means that they are somehow closed off from everything else. Quite the contrary. From my experiences in meeting other photographers in person, most have a great appreciation for other art forms and creative endeavors. I know several who are musicians, painters, woodworkers and sculptors. I don't think it is possible to develop a great love of photography without developing a growing understanding of other art mediums. And yes, many of the folks I have met that work only with traditional materials actually appreciate digital imaging when it is good.

Unfortunately photographers who continue to work with and support traditional materials and methods are continually marginalized and stereotyped as narrow minded luddites. This thinking is fueled by the vociferous folks who will not admit that digital is relevant, important and here to stay. If Brooks can look past those folks ( I was one of them once), I think he would find that those of us who work predominately in the niche of traditional photography are no different then folks who work in the niche of oil painting or stone carving, or print making. I mean compared to the rest of the population all art forms fit into a niche.

copake_ham said:

Brooks seems to indicate that he cannot see a difference b/w a film image and a digital one.

Click to expand...

George,
Of course there is a difference, just as there is between a well-crafted gelatin silver and a similarly well-crafted platinum/palladium print. They can both be well-crafted but are as different as can be. Each medium has its own personality -- silver, platinum, gum bichromate, photogravure, offset lithography, tintype, emulsion transfer, (the list goes on an on, and this says nothing of Cibachrome or the various color technologies) -- and, of course, inkjet. Each is unique. Each offers the photographer a choice of aesthetics, economics, palette, working logistics, etc. Each has it own look and feel.

Similarly, 35mm is different from 8x10 is different from digital capture is different from photograms.

I guess where I differ from some is that I differentiate between these without prioritizing them. I simply don't find one method (or camera) better than the others in general. Of course, with any given specific image there is often a specific technique that suits that image best. Fortunately, we have so many varied choices at our disposal so we can use our creativity in any way we think suits the image and communicates our artistic intent the best. For example, an 8x10 and gelatin silver may be wonderful in the landscape, but it makes a cumbersome combination for sports photography. Photogram gum bichromates make some wonderful still lifes, but I'd shy away from it for shooting a wedding. (Come to think of it, could be interesting!) Etc.

I tend to want to parallel this to music. I like classical. I like jazz. I like Celtic. I like rock. I like easy listening. I have them all on my system and listen to them all, as my mood is inclined. I do not, however, think one form of music is "better" than the next or the end-all and be-all of musical styles. Except disco, which I do think undeniably scrapes the bottom of the barrel. And, of course, Joni Mitchell -- who has never made an aesthetic mistake in her life, but I digress.

Brooks

Brooks,

All well and good, and I don't fault you in anyway for including digital images in "lenswork". I am perhaps concerned that it becomes a slippery slope - we've seen many photo publications begin to add digital content and within a short time become completely dominated by it. Not to mention the tendency of some of the "Popular" ones to go even further and become belligerently "in you face" opposed to film photography.

What does rankle is your criticism of the creation of film-only niches. I fail to see how this can be anything but positive; since it seeks to preserve a tradition which many of us consider to remain important and relevant to our lives and pursuits.

Yes, APUG and Emulsion are "niches" but in a positive way. It is incorrect to equate the term "niche" with "narrow" as I believe you have done. As many here have noted, they are aware of and often engage in the digital side also (e.g. I own a couple of DSLRs and often "twin" one with a film SLR when shooting "event" situations).

As others have better articulated than I can - all art forms can be seen as "niche activities" and it is not unusual to see practitioners of a particular art form gathering into interest groups to share ideas and techniques etc.

I would have ONE suggestion for Lenswork:

Every portfolio has a description of equipment used (and what the photographer is "currently" using), usually including the brands and often the exact model names.

Unless it's crucially important to a direct appreciation of the work, this should be dropped. It just sings the same consumerist song. Who cares really if Gene Smith used an Leica or SRT101, other than product managers at Leica and Minolta (err, Sony).

bjorke said:

Every portfolio has a description of equipment used (and what the photographer is "currently" using), usually including the brands and often the exact model names.

Click to expand...

I know, I know. This is one of those issues about which it is impossible to please everyone. We didn't include any camera information at all for the first 48 issues of LensWork! It was the number one complaint and we would regularly receive requests from readers to include this information. Finally, starting with issue #49, we decided to include just a one or two-line mention of the equipment used at the end of the bio. Now we get people complaining that we include it. Oh, well. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that there will always be something that prevents you from achieving perfection-- :rolleyes: -- as though we artists need such reminders!

And thanks, bjorke! I'll take it as a compliment that you only have one suggestion.
Brooks

copake_ham said:

. . .become completely dominated by it.

Click to expand...

Not to worry. Not going to happen. Too many really terrific photographers out there using non-digital for it ever to loose its permanent foothold. After all, there are still a lot of platinum printers and it's supposedly been "obsolete" since gelatin silver was the new kid on the block.

copake_ham said:

. . . What does rankle is your criticism of the creation of film-only niches. I fail to see how this can be anything but positive; since it seeks to preserve a tradition which many of us consider to remain important and relevant to our lives and pursuits.

Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait. That's not at all what I said. My podcast was expressing concern about the risk of becoming too narrowly defined. In fact, most of the posts in this thread exhibit what I propose is exactly the right idea -- having many areas of interest, many areas of curiosity, many areas of life that cross-pollinate one another. I am not at all throwing stones at specialty niches -- heck, LensWork is one! -- but rather cautioning against the temptation to define ourselves, especially our creative selves, with too many restrictions. I believe, quite simply, that diversity is a virtue in the creative life and that anyone interested in making visual arts will be well served by paying some attention to the culinary, auditory, literary, and theatrical arts as well, for example. That's all.
Brooks

Brooks,

Well, at the least, you have listened. But what you have heard remains unknown for now. I think bjorke's suggestion is a good one - although the alternative pressures are understandable too.

Perhaps I'll purchase your next issue. But, with subscriptions to Aperture and Emulsion, I cannot commit beyond that.

great thread.
thanks.

lenswork said:

George,
Of course there is a difference, just as there is between a well-crafted gelatin silver and a similarly well-crafted platinum/palladium print.

Click to expand...

I'm curious Brooks. When was the last time you personally shot film?

roteague said:

The world at large also considers McDonalds as food. A lot of professionals, not all, only care about making a sale, not about obtaining the highest quality.

My point was about why a lot of people complain about the magazine, not about the absolute merits of digital photography.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, many professionals use digital BECAUSE they care about quality.

I personally shoot flm because:
1) there are issues with archival storage of digital files
2) there are issues with handling extreme contrast with digital capture
3) as I no longer work commercially but only do personal projects, there would be no financial logic in spending £20,000 to buy a high-end digital camera which would deliver awesome technical quality (I don't shoot anything like enough to amortize this cost) when I can get the same quality from an analog camera costing hundreds.

On the other hand, I print digitally because, particularly in color, the degree of control available is far superior to analog and is what I have been looking for all my life! Digital monochrome has in my view (as a trained professional who has been taking pictures for 50+ years) moved in recent years from being unacceptably poor to now being well within hailing distance of analog and totally acceptable in many (still not all) instances.

I really have to say that I totally deprecate the idea that anyone working digitally is a con-man and artistic whore who does not care about quality but only about money. Digital capture and output is the industry standard today - like it or not!

Regards,

David

Digital capture and output is the industry standard today

Click to expand...

Maybe that makes traditional based art the spiritual standard?

Never cared much for being told by the "industry" how I should be making art.

David H. Bebbington said:

Believe it or not, many professionals use digital BECAUSE they care about quality.

Click to expand...

Is that the reason I can pickup any number of supposedly high quality magazines and see images with blown highlights, muddy color, and lack of sharpness? The giveaway that they are digital - digital noise (like Life magazines "Images of the Holy Land" - on the front cover no less)

There is also the matter of ethics. With the rise of "digital" quality has come the rise of manipulated images, like the image of the bombing in Lebanon, National Geographic Traveler's digital composite of a snorkler and a breaching whale. Sad. There was a time that photography was used to protect our environment; just look at Jack Dykinga's work that was instrumental in the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, as well as Sierra Alamos National Park in Mexico, or Peter Dumbrovski's work in saving the Franklin River from being dammed in Tasmania or the work of Eliot Porter in Glen Canyon, among other examples.

Now people ask if an image is digital and has been photoshopped. People no longer believe images.

David H. Bebbington said:

Digital capture and output is the industry standard today - like it or not!

Regards,

David

Click to expand...

So is McDonalds. But, I don't have to call it good food.