INKED Magazine

[lee]

Is this guy a sponsor? If not, why is he hawking his wares on the sponsor part of the site? So far, all he has done with the exception of one post about his buying a camera is talk about how good his magazine is and after seeing the first copy, there is no way in hell well I ever buy another. This guy is abusing this site.

lee\c

 

[DavidS]

Is this guy a sponsor? If not, why is he hawking his wares on the sponsor part of the site? So far, all he has done with the exception of one post about his buying a camera is talk about how good his magazine is and after seeing the first copy, there is no way in hell well I ever buy another. This guy is abusing this site.

lee\c

Hey, Lee, go look at my second issue and you'll see what everything's about.

 

[Chazzy]

I was thinking about subscribing until I went to the website and saw that _Inked_ will include digital photography. There are dozens of magazines I can read for information concerning digital photography. If you concentrated on traditional photography, including the older "alternative" processes, you would have something unique and I would definitely want it.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I was thinking about subscribing until I went to the website and saw that _Inked_ will include digital photography. There are dozens of magazines I can read for information concerning digital photography. If you concentrated on traditional photography, including the older "alternative" processes, you would have something unique and I would definitely want it.

Having subscribed to inked (eagerly awaiting my first copy) and also downloaded, printed out and scrutinized the first issue, I would say the emphasis is clearly on art photography and creative expression and absolutely NOT on technical "how to" articles or on any particular technology to the exclusion of any other. People can sneer at digital all they want on this website, they can claim vast advantages for traditional methods, others who are not technological fanatics don't see it that way and it would be commercial suicide to try to force them to.

 

[Chazzy]

Having subscribed to inked (eagerly awaiting my first copy) and also downloaded, printed out and scrutinized the first issue, I would say the emphasis is clearly on art photography and creative expression and absolutely NOT on technical "how to" articles or on any particular technology to the exclusion of any other. People can sneer at digital all they want on this website, they can claim vast advantages for traditional methods, others who are not technological fanatics don't see it that way and it would be commercial suicide to try to force them to.

Interesting that you characterize this as a website where we "fanatics" sneer at digital methods--and yet you're here, and _Inked_ magazine is here trying to reach potential subscribers among us presumed Neanderthals. I find that odd. And, incidentally, your remarks might justly be characterized as a "sneer" at the sort of people who use this website.

Surely the existence of APUG is proof that there is a market (I don't pretend to know how big a market) for a publication oriented to hand-made prints, instead of inkjet prints which can be cranked out by the dozens and dignified as "giclees" to the unwary. Those who want to see inkjet prints have their choice of dozens of magazines. It would be nice to have just one which is restricted to traditional hand-made art, including cyanotypes, platinotypes, gum prints and all the other sorts of beautiful prints which people on this site are producing. One might expect that a magazine which is being marketed on this site would have that orientation. This is a strange place to be pushing the notion that art is art and how one gets there doesn't matter.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I'm not sneering at anyone - and not all APUGers are virulently anti-digital, but some are beyond all reason. Yes, the publisher of inked magazine is trying to win APUGers as customers, among, I am sure, a large number of other target groups. The question of "market" is a fascinating one - there is certainly keen INTEREST in traditional methods, the number of enthusiasts spending significant amounts of money on traditionally-made artworks by other is relatively small.
I find it unfortunate that you use the phrase "giclees to the unwary" - there is adequate test data available today to allow buyers to invest in digitial prints with confidence, and it drives me crazy that pig-ignorant reactionaries (not you! primarily gallery owners and so-called experts) refuse to spend a few hours learning about archival inkjet printing and instead dismiss the whole technology out of hand.

 

[Andy K]

David, have you seen (there was a url link here which no longer exists) recent thread?

 

[Sean]

refuse to spend a few hours learning about archival inkjet printing and instead dismiss the whole technology out of hand.

It's not so much dismissing the technology, it's not needing to know anything about it. A lot of people and galleries have already chosen their paths, they are happy with their decision, and are just getting on with producing or selling the type of work they want to. If a new 5,000 megapixel camera comes out that can output to a 1,000,000 dpi inkjet print, and last for a million years, I could care less. For me nothing will beat processing a sheet of film and hand printing it in a darkroom..

 

[David H. Bebbington]

David, have you seen (there was a url link here which no longer exists) recent thread?

I have indeed - it has some very valuable info, the most salient point seems to be that the ink/paper combination recommended (and made) by a printer manufacturer is almost always the best bet (sometimes by a big margin). This is some comfort as you listen to your ink cartridges gurgling towards empty faster than you would have thought possible!

Far be it from me to preach the virtues of digital printing, but I think there is a big difference between color and b+w. Fiber-based b+w paper has certain qualities which are still way ahead of digital, whereas for me at least digital color printing is technically superior (and NOT faster, NOT cheaper, NOT easier!).

I would never again want to be without a means of varying saturation and contrast independently of density, lifting midtones via "Levels" while leaving highlights and shadows untouched, etc. If others want to stay in the darkroom, fine, but it drives me nuts if people tell me I'm doing digital color because I'm lazy and trying to foist garbage onto unsuspecting punters!

 

[DavidS]

I was thinking about subscribing until I went to the website and saw that _Inked_ will include digital photography. There are dozens of magazines I can read for information concerning digital photography. If you concentrated on traditional photography, including the older "alternative" processes, you would have something unique and I would definitely want it.

Chazzy, I've had this discussion before with other APUGgers. I'm not a technology magazine, I'm a black and white photography magazine. My main emphasis in black and white photography is traditional, hand made prints. 6 out of 7 photographers featured in my last issue were traditional. 2 out of 3 photographers I interviewed were also traditional. At my booth at Photo San Francisco, all 10 photographers that I'm representing are traditional photographers. I just spent $1200 on a traditional camera and over $100 on film and am going to spend hundreds if not thousands of more dollars per year on traditional products.

To be honest, I'm going to see about the digital stuff. Almost all, if not all of the photographers I'm featuring in my 3rd issue are traditional. If I don't see any galleries exhibiting photographers who shoot in digital or any advertisers who shoot in digital, I may just nix it. I really don't seem to be generating that much, if any income because I accept digital.

 

[Sean]

This thread has run it's course and has been a lot of work moderating, so it's best we close it down. Any inked queries can be directed offline to inked via pm or their website.. thanks