has Brooks Jensen totally lost the plot

[Ian Grant]

His last Podcast is amazing. . . .

He's totally ignored film photography . . . . . .
Dead Link Removed

Ian

 

[david b]

I haven't listened to his ramblings in a long time. This one confirms why I've stopped.

 

[jovo]

You'll have to elaborate, for me at least, what you mean. I heard nothing in that podcast that isn't true....threads abound on digital forums on how to achieve the best b&w rendering of what is in nearly all cases, a color image. His observations are about digital cameras and have nothing to do with film. Why would he say anything about film at all in this context? It's not as if he's starting a thread on apug. It goes without needing to be said that b&w film is the best way to render black and white images, but that isn't his point.

 

[seadrive]

He's making an interesting point about black and white photographers who continue to prefer b&w over color, even though they've embraced digital photography, which doesn't "understand" anything but RGB.

I wouldn't beat him to death over a two-minute podcast that ignores film to make a point.

 

[doughowk]

The "we" from Brooks Jensen's viewpoint is we digital photographers who want to emulate B&W photographs. Brooks, if you want to do B&W, film does it better. Use digital for its strengths rather than trying to mimic another medium.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

He's totally ignored film photography . . .

No he didn't...he included everybody in the first part. That was just Brooks being Brooks. You don't accomplish what he has with LensWork by being a 'shrinking violet' or by having a porous ego.

Murray

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I wouldn't beat him to death over a two-minute podcast that ignores film to make a point.

The one I listened to was 7 minutes, from April 21, entitled "Why I became interested in photography"...his latest one.

Murray

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Ohhh...now I get it!

By "last podcast" you meant the one 5 podcasts ago from Aril 7th. I went for a visit to the LensWork site instead of clicking on your link and listened to his actual last podcast.

Murray

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, it seems like he knows how to generate buzz on APUG. Wasn't he in marketing before he got into magazine publishing?

 

[jovo]

Wasn't he in marketing before he got into magazine publishing?

So he says...and apparently wrote a book on it as well.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

So he says...and apparently wrote a book on it as well.

Not an easy book to find--

http://www.cheapbooks.info/compare.aspx?isbn=0964569000

 

[Jim Chinn]

People need to come to the realization that the peice of the photography pie relating to film is shrinking and digital growing by leaps and bounds. When you are in a business that mass markets you have to appeal to the largest possible audience unless you want to be a niche offering. There is probably a substantial number of Lenswork readers and subscribers who have shifted to digital. Brooks is simply trying to market to those folks and make inroads to a larger audience. Lenswork as a business is not responsible for keeping film alive, it is responsible to be profitable to the owners.
We need to face the fact that with the exception of Emulsion, the magazines that we are familiar with will become more and more oriented to digital.

 

[lenswork]

FWIW, I continue to think that's photography is not "about equipment" but rather "about photographs." Before digital, LensWork did not favor gelatin silver above all other print media because I was doing gelatin silver in my darkroom, nor did it discriminate against, say, platinum/palladium prints because I didn't do them myself. LensWork is not only NOT about equipment, it is also NOT about any given print medium.

I applaud the APUG group (and have done so publicly) for their commitment to a set of tools and single-minded dedication to excellence in craftsmanship. Photography needs (always) more people who appreciate excellence. This forum knows its focus and has provided all of us (me included) a place to discuss and learn more about photography. Great.

At LensWork, we also have and know the focus of our efforts. We are dedicated and committed to publish excellence in photographs and to publish ideas about photography and the creative process. Unlike APUG, we are not focussed on any given technology -- so digital photography is just fine, as are gelatin silver, platinum, gum bichromate, and all the other media. Now with LensWork EXTENDED, we even publish (shock!) color work.

I think it is important in life to know what you do and to know what you are good at. In business, it's the same, plus add that it's important to know what your "mission statement" is. APUG has a fine mission. LensWork has a fine mission. To a large degree, our missions coincide -- and therefore a lot of APUG people are LensWork readers and vice versa. But, in some ways our misions are different. That's okay, isn't it?

I know my podcasts may not always be on target for people who are dedicated to analog photography. Some podcasts may not be of interest to people who do color work. Some may not be of interest to people who sell in galleries, etc. Quite honestly, I don't choose topics for podcasts based on whether or not I think people will be interested in them or whether or not I think it will grow our podcast audience, etc. I am much more selfish than that! I talk about what interests me -- and I do so with the hope that some people might also find it interesting and perhaps even useful. It's true, "You can't please all the people . . ." yadayadayada. Clearly, if a podcast (or all of them) are not of interest to you, you can always choose to not listen to them. Since they're free, it's not like you're paying for something and then find out you've got buyer's remorse.

As to my previous career, boy, what a walk down memory lane! I can't believe that David found a copy of my old book. What a hoot! Yes, in my previous life I had a day job -- one that kept me from photography. I got married young, worked for a large retailer after a couple of years of college, and eventually put my retailing skills to use to start a business in 1983 helping other retailers. I had a consulting company for about 15 years, wrote a few books, lectured all over the world on retailing skills -- and carried my view camera on as many trips as I could. Eventually, thank God, passion won the day and I quit my "day job" so I could focus my efforts full-time on my passion of photography. That was the birth of LensWork. Sure, it's handy when you run a business to have some business skills and experience. I'm glad I do. Any of you who are commercial photographers I'm sure know what I mean. It's tough to keep a business together, meet the payroll every week, pay the taxes, buy equipment and skills you need to suvive in the future, etc. Business is a challenge, but it is a much more rewarding challenge when you are doing something you love. I am very, very glad my business is no longer in retail and instead involves me every day with the kind of photography I love.

Finally, as to my having "gone digital." Yes, I do enjoy working with my digital camera. I also enjoy working with film. I like contact prints, enlargements, silver, platinum, and have even tried my hand at gum bichromate, Van Dyke, and cyanotypes. Right now I'm using an Epson 4000 printer and I like what I'm getting from it. I enjoy printing all kinds of media -- including the offset lithography we use to produce LensWork. I love images! I am particularly, personally, fond of black and white -- or should I more correctly say "monochromatic" images. I know for some of you my use of digital might be some sort of, what, betrayal? Sell out? Something. Sorry if you feel that way. Art is always a personal affair and in my particular case my love of photography is not defined by a given medium but rather by my love of images.

I guess I can only hope that those of you who disagree with me about things digital won't throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to LensWork. Our editorial decisions are never -- NEVER -- concerned with analog or digital methods. Quite simply, we don't care. We are only influenced by the pictures. (Funny that a photography magazine needs to say this, isn't it?) We are guided by our mission statement about photography and the creative process, not by some shift in the winds of manufacturing or marketing of cameras and equipment. That's one of the reasons we don't take outside advertising -- we refuse to be influenced by other people's needs to sell their stuff. If the whole world revolts against digital, it won't influence the content of LensWork. If the whole world goes digital, it won't influence the content of LensWork. Now, if the whole world stops making great images . . . well, that's not going to happen regardless of what equipment is used so I guess LensWork is here for the long run -- at least as long as people share our passion for black and white images.

Brooks Jensen
(Photographer and) Editor, LensWork Publishing

 

[Dave Wooten]

Well said Brooks.

 

[Dave Miller]

No one is forced to listen to him, but maybe a little more tolerance would not go amiss.

 

[JBrunner]

In my experience, Mr. Jensen is always very honest, and very clear about his positions. And agree with him or not, if you follow the magazine, etc. it becomes apparent that his observations are arrived at by careful consideration.

He is also quoted out of context here on regular occasion.

BTW if you haven't ever looked at LENSWORK, it is has quite simply the finest print quality of any periodical I have ever seen.

If we want to see more traditional work in the magazine, podcasts, not withstanding, I would suggest we get off our collective butts and submit it.

The submission guidelines are clear, and easy to find.

JMO

 

[donbga]

In my experience, Mr. Jensen is always very honest, and very clear about his positions. And agree with him or not, if you follow the magazine, etc. it becomes apparent that his observations are arrived at by careful consideration.

He is also quoted out of context here on regular occasion.

BTW if you haven't ever looked at LENSWORK, it is has quite simply the finest print quality of any periodical I have ever seen.

If we want to see more traditional work in the magazine, podcasts, not withstanding, I would suggest we get off our collective butts and submit it.

The submission guidelines are clear, and easy to find.

JMO

Jason,

Well put, you echo my sentiments completely. Sometimes I think these potshots are aimed at Brooks due to envy. It always seems it's the same familiar list of suspects leading the assualt.

 

[roteague]

I think sometimes we forget that Brooks isn't writing soley for APUG - he has a much wider audience. He can't just write articles/commentaries as if APUG members are the only B&W photographers. But, it isn't surprising that many APUG members get upset at his commentaries, after all we do "film" based photography because we don't find "digital" photography satisfying.

It also gets lost sometimes that Brooks does shoot film. However, IMO, he is deluding himself if he thinks that he can get the same results from an Epson 4000 as he can in the darkroom, but that is just my opinion.

 

[bw4ever]

Brooks,

I listen to your podcasts and at times (when I can find them) your magazine. I find your views informative, funny at times, and even at direct opposites to my views on things. It would be rather boring to read things that always agree with my way of thinking. Dude, you have earned by respect for being true to your OWN vision .

 

[jovo]

Except when print pricing and digital/analog issues become fodder for controversy nearly every other podcast Brooks makes seems far too reasonable to even generate a reaction on the Lenswork forum. After listening to most of them I usually shrug and think: "Yup...that makes sense.". Why Brooks becomes a lightning rod around here totaly eludes me.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Included in my personal fine art print collection are prints from David Goldfarb, Brooks Jensen and Ansel Adams.....

That Lenswork (certainly at the top of my list of fine image publications) continues to thrive without columns of commercial ads, is a tribute to not only the quality of the publication and its renewed acceptance of its customer base, but also to the focus and mission of those at the helm. It is also most articulate.


I so look forward to re looking at and reading my past issues as much as the future editions.

 

[bill schwab]

It always seems it's the same familiar list of suspects leading the assualt.

Much like it is the same familiar suspects that come to his rescue?

Although I have not heard the cast, in this case it seems to be a pretty hollow assault. Even so, I am sure Brooks Jensen cares little about what his detractors say as long as they spell his name and that of his magazine correctly.

Bill

 

[avandesande]

I disagree with much of what he says, but he appears to be gracious and well spoken. He doesn't spam the forums trying to promote his magazine. Why not just ignore what he says if you don't like it?

If anything you just drive traffic to his site.

 

[roteague]

Why Brooks becomes a lightning rod around here totaly eludes me.

I think some people feel betrayed by Brooks. Here is one more source for fine art B&W photography going down the path of embracing an inferior technology.

 

[removed account4]

he runs a very good magazine that isn't riddled with typos and advertisements. i think it is great that he knows what he wants. sure it sometimes it isn't what so called luddite elitists are interested in, but you can't please all of the people all of the time ...

I think some people feel betrayed by Brooks. Here is one more source for fine art B&W photography going down the path of embracing an inferior technology.

the thing is ---
you think it is inferior technology, and it might be it is, for what you want to do, but for him, it isn't the technology, it is the final image that counts, and if he is happy with his results ... that's great.