Congrats to the APUG members who were published in the Portfolio issue of B&W Mag...

[David Brown]

Please tell me which issue you think was better! There was a lot of great stuff in this one.

That's not an argumentative question. I really liked this one. "More please"

I do not argue that there was a lot of great stuff in this one! I just did not think it was the "best ... ever". I can't point to a specific issue (or issues) over the years, but I just know that I've had a much more positive personal response to others in the past. Every issue has things I like and things I don't, so this one was no exception there, either.

One thing I did notice about this issue, and another poster has mentioned it: I didn't think the reproduction in this issue was up to the usual standards. IMHO, of course. The whole magazine seemed dark and a bit contrasty to me. All of this is subjective, so take it for what it is.

 

[jovo]

I

One thing I did notice about this issue, and another poster has mentioned it: I didn't think the reproduction in this issue was up to the usual standards.

I've been disappointed with B&W's reproduction quality for years. I'm happy to see the images, but, especially with the standard that LensWork sets, B&W doesn't fare very well at all. (Of course, LensWork is expensive and offers far fewer images in the print version of the magazine.)

I think I read that the editor only accepts images on CD, because the volume of actual prints in their first contest was so great that they were overwhelmed. As a consequence, the images are subject not only to being changed to gray scale from color (as in so many cases they have been), but also to the vagueries of scanning skill and equipment from those who submit. Hence, some are oversharpened and some are much softer than they probably are in reality. I've noticed that many of the folks whose work is accepted do not have websites which may indicate that their digital acumen is limited. I understand Rasmussen's dilemma, but the results suffer as a consequence.

 

[Early Riser]

What's sad is the number of photographers that got published, that don't even do "fine art" or even black and white! After looking at many of their websites, I found lots of them are only commercial photographers, and even found a few examples where the person work was ALL COLOR, but a few images were converted to B&W for the sake of the magazing publishing.

Why does it matter if some of the photographer's backgrounds were commercial photography? And what really defines "fine art"? Many of the most highly regarded photographers of the last century were commercial, Adams, Avedon, Newman, Penn, etc and many of their assignment pieces ended up being considered "fine art". To me it's the work that counts.

I have yet to see the issue, I have been traveling but offer my congrats to those whose work appeared.

 

[User Removed]

Why does it matter if some of the photographer's backgrounds were commercial photography? And what really defines "fine art"? Many of the most highly regarded photographers of the last century were commercial, Adams, Avedon, Newman, Penn, etc and many of their assignment pieces ended up being considered "fine art". To me it's the work that counts.

I have yet to see the issue, I have been traveling but offer my congrats to those whose work appeared.

Oh no, I don't mean there is anything wrong with doing commercial photography and being in the magazine. What I mean is that after looking at alot of the photographers work in the magazine, I could not find anything online on their fine art that is reproduced in the magazine, but rather only websites of thier stock images/weddings/ect. There were some photographers whos work I would be interested in seeing more of, but their website was 100% commerical and did not even contain the images that were published.

I always though that B&W Magazine was for collectors of fine art photography. Being a collector, if I was interested in someones work that I wanted to see more of and possibly purchase, only to go online and find their only wedding portraits website... I would be rather disapointed.

Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Early Riser]

Ryan I only started doing my personal photography in 1998 and none of it appeared on my website, which was dedicated to my advertising work, until several years later, I imagine a similar situation might be the case with those you mention. It should not be surprising though that many who have spent years with photography as their full time occupation may also have some ability in other areas of it. Many other photographers that I know who shot commercially for editorial or advertising, also had excellent personal work portfolios.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

I just got the issue in the mail yesterday. It is the best Special Issue so far, and I now look forward to future ones.

Also, congrats the to everyone here (and some people I know who aren't here) who made it into the magazine.

What I mean is that after looking at alot of the photographers work in the magazine, I could not find anything online on their fine art that is reproduced in the magazine, but rather only websites of thier stock images/weddings/ect. There were some photographers whos work I would be interested in seeing more of, but their website was 100% commerical and did not even contain the images that were published.

That is too bad that they didn't position themselves to take full advantage of being published.

__________________
www.RichardBoutwell.com

 

[bjorke]

Ryan I only started doing my personal photography in 1998 and none of it appeared on my website, which was dedicated to my advertising work, until several years later, I imagine a similar situation might be the case with those you mention. It should not be surprising though that many who have spent years with photography as their full time occupation may also have some ability in other areas of it. Many other photographers that I know who shot commercially for editorial or advertising, also had excellent personal work portfolios.

Consider the example of Sam Abell, who, for all those years shooting color NatGeo spreads since the 1960's, was also shooting his own B&W work quietly and in parallel for year after year after year, never showing it until recently.

Heck, if a potential customer knew the wedding shooter (or commercial shooter) they were considering could be shown an example of his work in a "fine art" magazine like B&W... that might drive sales far more substantial than what collector markets could drive alone. Does Alec Soth's work invalidate itself because he shoots for W or Paris Vogue or whatever? I doubt it. Taryn Simon? Mark Leong? Nope and nope.... Avedon or Arbus? Do we readily dismiss Steichen because he produced (the first) cardboard-stock photo books for babies?

 

[Early Riser]

Consider the example of Sam Abell, who, for all those years shooting color NatGeo spreads since the 1960's, was also shooting his own B&W work quietly and in parallel for year after year after year, never showing it until recently.

Heck, if a potential customer knew the wedding shooter (or commercial shooter) they were considering could be shown an example of his work in a "fine art" magazine like B&W... that might drive sales far more substantial than what collector markets could drive alone. Does Alec Soth's work invalidate itself because he shoots for W or Paris Vogue or whatever? I doubt it. Taryn Simon? Mark Leong? Nope and nope.... Avedon or Arbus? Do we readily dismiss Steichen because he produced (the first) cardboard-stock photo books for babies?

Bjorke, I'm confused with your addressing this point to me. We share the same POV on this but I'm not sure if you realize that.

 

[bjorke]

Bjorke, I'm confused with your addressing this point to me. We share the same POV on this but I'm not sure if you realize that.

I do - but I was too lazy to scroll back over multiple pages looking for the older post you responded to