[E-zine] - The Large Format Journal

[Jorge]

I should add the one thing I do not like. It allows digital. Is nowhere safe, except the (digital) planet APUG? I might have to retract my other statements now, having noticed that. the pictures were good and I enjoyed them, but I'm not going to rush to support them if they could decay into digital without warning.

Lets keep some perspective, digital per se is not bad and some people are doing good work with LF cameras. There is a thread on the LF forum about a guy who used a betterlight back with his 4x5 camera, and is showing some great shots of Angkor Wat.

I was annoyed at the "photoshop toned" print, a "print" is not "toned" until it is on paper, wether is it electronically or chemically. So I would urge them to start using accurate terms when publishing their journal, the caption should have read "color added with ps".

I think they used too much written material on the featured photographers. IOW, shut up and show me the pictures...

Overall I thought it was a great first effort and certainly would not mind getting it again.

 

[Mongo]

I think they used too much written material on the featured photographers. IOW, shut up and show me the pictures...

Thanks for that Jorge...you always have a way of finding exactly the right words for what I want to say.

Be well.
Dave

 

[Jorge]

BTW, here is the link for the guy using the betterlight back.

http://tinyurl.com/7dh5v

I have to say there are some great shots there, of course if you scroll down to where he shows all the crap he carries I know I could not work this way.

 

[Wayne]

Lets keep some perspective, digital per se is not bad and some people are doing good work with LF cameras. There is a thread on the LF forum about a guy who used a betterlight back with his 4x5 camera, and is showing some great shots of Angkor Wat.

My perspective is that I cant get a single analog publication, but I can get digital anywhere. I cant get away from it. I have always said that good work is possible with digital, that has never been an issue for me. But once it creeps in it will begin to dominate unless there is a policy in place to prevent it. Lets face it, there are a lot more of them (maybe not in LF, at least yet...), so its inevitable. This issue didnt suffer one bit from lack of digital.

 

[Mongo]

I saw his page earlier (after a discussion on the large format group, I believe), and I had to wonder about just how much insurance this guy must have.

He does nice work...but my main 8x10 camera cost me less than $300...if it got stolen it wouldn't be a huge financial loss. This guy probably carries 100x as much in dollar value than I do. Probably even more...the back alone probably cost 100x what my camera cost. I hope he has excellent insurance!

 

[Wayne]

Those are some nice images from Angkor Wat. Nevertheless...

 

[Jorge]

My perspective is that I cant get a single analog publication, but I can get digital anywhere. I cant get away from it. I have always said that good work is possible with digital, that has never been an issue for me. But once it creeps in it will begin to dominate unless there is a policy in place to prevent it. Lets face it, there are a lot more of them (maybe not in LF, at least yet...), so its inevitable. This issue didnt suffer one bit from lack of digital.

I know, but a Journal (if it is to be the true definition of a Journal) should be all inclusive. We cannot demand they limit the publication to only analog just because it is what we like. I have no problem with them including digital as long as it is free of hype and accurately portrayed. OTOH if you read the editor's column at the end, it seems he is partial to analog work...

There is that Dave, I know the back is worth more than $10,000. Imagine how much film that could have bought...

 

[Wayne]

I know, but a Journal (if it is to be the true definition of a Journal) should be all inclusive. We cannot demand they limit the publication to only analog just because it is what we like. I have no problem with them including digital as long as it is free of hype and accurately portrayed. OTOH if you read the editor's column at the end, it seems he is partial to analog work...

There is that Dave, I know the back is worth more than $10,000. Imagine how much film that could have bought...

Well the inclusiveness dilemna (if there is one) is easily solved by calling it the Analog Large Format Journal. I have no problem excluding digital imaging. But its not my journal, this is just the direction I hope it would take because otherwise I feel it will become just another run of the mill, hybrid publication. I like my photography LF, raw, unfiltered, and undiluted. I really liked this issue.

 

[Jorge]

Well the inclusiveness dilemna (if there is one) is easily solved by calling it the Analog Large Format Journal. I have no problem excluding digital imaging. But its not my journal, this is just the direction I hope it would take because otherwise I feel it will become just another run of the mill, hybrid publication. I like my photography LF, raw, unfiltered, and undiluted. I really liked this issue.

I see, no wonder many people are turned off by the zealotry found in APUG. Why should they call it the "analog" LF journal? It is a photography journal, digital is part of photography whether we like it or not and it has it's uses.

I dont know if you noticed but APUG has digital too.....I find it ironic that it is known for having a great digital forum by some people. God knows I advocate the use of film, and no matter how much the digiheads jump up and down and insist that their digi negs are just as good as real negatives I dont buy it. But lets not bury our head in the sand and demand that everything is digital free, if it is well handled I am sure they can make it interesting.

Bottom line, LF is more conducive to analog photography, but an article about the use of the betterlight back for example would not have been out of place.

 

[Wayne]

As you wish Jorge. I am entitled to opinions just as you are, and that fact doesnt make anyone guilty of zealotry. The idea of forming an analog photo journal is no more zealous than forming a Large Format Journal in the first place, or an ULF Journal-they all exclude certain groups. However it doesnt look like you need to worry too much, the LF journal doesnt plan to exclude digital.

 

[John_Brewer]

My perspective is that I cant get a single analog publication, but I can get digital anywhere. I cant get away from it. I have always said that good work is possible with digital, that has never been an issue for me. But once it creeps in it will begin to dominate unless there is a policy in place to prevent it. Lets face it, there are a lot more of them (maybe not in LF, at least yet...), so its inevitable. This issue didnt suffer one bit from lack of digital.

Then start your own magazine!

 

[Jorge]

As you wish Jorge. I am entitled to opinions just as you are, and that fact doesnt make anyone guilty of zealotry. The idea of forming an analog photo journal is no more zealous than forming a Large Format Journal in the first place, or an ULF Journal-they all exclude certain groups. However it doesnt look like you need to worry too much, the LF journal doesnt plan to exclude digital.

YOu are right, the idea of forming an analog journal is not zealotry, condeming these guys for allowing digital is.

I am not much worried, but then I dont mind if they include digital as long as it is done fairly and without hype. The moment they start praising digital as the best thing since sliced bread, then I will stop getting their journal and get on their face about it. I did it with Lenswork, I see no reason why I would act differently with the Journal.

 

[Wayne]

But i didnt condemn them. In fact I praised the publication. I then added "I'm not going to rush to support them (financially) if they could decay into (excessive) digital without warning." and by that I was simply taking a wait and see attitude, revising and hedging on my previous statement that I was willing to pay more money to support them.