Lenswork - Ouch!

[Macwax]

I renewed my subscription to Lenswork Extended last week because I don't want to miss an opportunity to see every issue of this fine art publication. If you want to see what the fuss is all about and don't live near a Barnes and Noble, spend a few hours on the Lenswork website. It's excellent. I bought an issue of Lenswork last year, spent several hours on the website and couldn't walk away without subscribing. It just made sense. I used to buy B and W, but find that the Lenswork images, thoughtful intellectual discussion and informative video interviews and darkroom tours irresistible. B and W seems to be about selling. Lenswork is truly focused on the art of photography. Digital or analog, it just doesn't matter. If you are drawn to black and white images as I am, you won't be disappointed.

I choose to make gelatin silver prints, (God I'm so old I even remember they used to be called black and white prints,) and quickly fade out when I even read a description of how someone manipulates software to mimic the photographic process. Nevertheless, Brooks has convinced me that Lenswork is primarily about the image, not the process. The majority of what I read on the internet is equipment driven. Not so Lenswork. Dare I say it's refreshing.

For those who haven't taken the plunge (Six dollars and 50 cents per issue), Lenswork Extended offers incredible porfolios which are typically a good deal larger than those published in the hard copy. Would any of you be interested in a video tour of Edward Weston's darkroom. I was. Video and audio interviews......got em.

As far as I'm concerned, Lenswork magazine is beautiful and Lenswork Extended is the future of fine arts publication. Plus, my wife hasn't figured it all out and I haven't been chided for bringing yet another magazine into the house.

Keep up the good work Brooks.

John MacKechnie

 

[lenswork]

Well, let me try again.

One of the most fundamental strategies of marketing is to have a variety of products that appeal to all levels in the economy. Hence, you can purchase a Toyota Corolla or a Lexus -- both from the same company. When I was growing up, there were 99-cent 45 RPM records and full price LPs; now there are 89-cent downloads and collectible boxed sets of CDs. McDonalds has the 99-cent burger, the $3.99 deluxe version, and the $6.99 full meal deal. There are economy airlines seats as well as First Class ones; $10 Sony headphones and $299 noise-canceling models; paperback books and hardcovers; basic cable TV and deluxe packages; etc. This pattern of choice and variety exists for a reason. Quite simply, it works. It allows the consumers in the free market to choose where they want to participate in the sellers range of goods. It creates customers who most often begin a relationship with a seller at the low end of the product line; they then can move up to the better goods as their means and interest progress. It allows a place for everyone to participate with a seller regardless of their financial abilities. It's traditionally called the "good, better, best" theory in business.

I believe in this philosophy. I employ it in my artwork and in my publishing endeavors.

In my artwork, I offer a small assortment of $20 prints that are unmounted, small in size, and come in a plastic sleeve with a cardboard backer. I consider these my "entry level" products for people who just want to see a sample of what I produce or who have interest in only making a $20 investment in my work. For those who are more committed and interested, I am currently offering folios of work that are $145; the full set of the Made of Steel folios are $625. Good, better, best. If I were offering 20x30 Cibachrome prints, matted and framed, you can bet I'd be charging a lot more for them -- maybe even the $1,500 to $5,000 that my friend Chris Burkett does. (Come to think of it, I wouldn't because mine wouldn't be nearly as spectacular as his are, but I digress . . .) If I had $5,000 prints, I would definitely also be thinking about something for the entry-level buyer. (Think Michael Kenna books and calendars.) I think this is a smart strategy.

More than that, I think it is a responsible one. Quite frankly, I believe all of us as photographers have a responsibility to develop the market for photography as a whole -- and that means bringing in entry-level buyers as well as selling to the established, well-funded collector. If you don't like my solution (the $20 unmatted print) think up one that does fit your needs. Morrie Camhi used to have what he called his "Popular Edition Prints" that were slightly smaller, not printed with quite as much fuss about the dodging and burning, and sold for $90, airdried, unflattened, signed only on the back. Ansel Adams had (still does) his "Special Editions" collection of selected images that are printed by Alan Ross and sold in Yosemite for a couple hundred bucks. When I interviewed Alan a few issues ago, he told me that they've sold over 84,000 prints. Seems to me like the strategy works.

So, rather than toss stones in my direction, why not think about this and see if you can adapt the idea so it makes sense for you and your photographic life? We are all creative individuals here. Use some of that creativity to develop a well rounded marketing strategy that appeals to people at all levels instead of just hoping to cherry-pick the upper-crust customers and let the entry-level folks suffer without. Think outside the box.

As to our publishing business, the same strategy applies -- and I'm not disclosing any business secrets here. We have free PDF overviews of every issue, sample articles, and podcasts that can be downloaded for free from our website. For some folks, that is the extent of their involvement with us -- and that's just fine. As their interest grows over time, they might become interested in what we have for sale. We have magazine subscriptions. We have Extended subscriptions. We have combo subscriptions. We have complete sets of Extended back issues (we call them the "whole enchilada" ), single books and packaged sets, 1-year, 2-year, 3-year subscriptions, etc. Our job is to give you choice. Were we to only give you a single, expensive product that only the most wealthy of you could afford, we'd fail. Badly.

My observation is that most photographers want to win the "gallery lottery." They hope to sell their photographs for a ton of money and become rich and famous doing so. It's a nice fantasy, but one that is so rare as to be virtually unrealizable. Better, in my opinion, to earn your success the tried and true way -- one step at a time, one customer at a time, one print at a time, over a long period of time, building success with lots and lots of little successes instead of relying on the one, big, splashy success.

Hope this helps.
Brooks

 

[lenswork]

As far as I'm concerned, Lenswork magazine is beautiful and Lenswork Extended is the future of fine arts publication. Plus, my wife hasn't figured it all out and I haven't been chided for bringing yet another magazine into the house.

Keep up the good work Brooks.

John MacKechnie

Golly, thanks. I wish there was an emoticon for "blushing profusely."
Brooks

 

[steelydam]

solid over the years

I've been a subscriber for about 2 ft of bookshelf space, can't remember the year exactly and too lazy to run upstairs and check right now. I think at the subscription price, it's a great deal, doubt I'd pay $13 at newsstand, but then again I'm cheap. Some portfolios might not be my cup of tea, but we all have different tastes and still - they're in black and white and I've been exposed to lots of artists I wouldn't have been otherwise. The interviews with the artists are cool and Bill Jay is usually a hoot.

I trust Brooks' opinion that quality work can be done with the right negative scanners, printers, and ink and someday when I have the money I'll likely look into what's out there. I have been meaning to subscribe to Lenswork Extended for a while now, and likely will soon, especially based on the recommendation I saw here.

Keep up the fine work, Brooks. Can't please all the people all the time but you are putting out a great publication and it is something lots of us look forward to getting in the mail.

-Derek M.

 

[copake_ham]

More and more this thread seems to be turning into a "directed advertisement"

Now we have "single posters" singing praises.

Starting to smell like something funny is cooking here...

 

[matt miller]

In a world full of magazines with tech-how-to's and digicam ads, Lenswork is a breath of fresh air. It's never about equipment, or how'd ja do it. It's the best photograph mag out there for my money.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

Well, Mr. Jensen, as I expected, you have ignored my point totally and turned your point of view into a crying environmental issue in order to position yourself in the roll of a hero by offering subscriptions to save the environment. Shame you are not running for public office, you would make a great politician.

I reiterate, your stand on selling your prints for cheap is to get art out to the public. Why do you not do the same with your magazine? Just because you do not make a living from your print sales, does not mean that others do not. You cheapen the market for everyone else, and make photography look cheap, yet you raise the price of your magazine so you can make a profit. That is my point. You cannot be at both extremes at the same time. Why does your business philosophy differ so much? It is hard to be on both sides of the fence at the same time, at least comfortably.

One other note, I see you haven’t updated your audio blog since Sep 05, 2007. . . I miss the entertainment immensely. And I do appreciate what you do. And I do think your magazine is a quality product. Just remember that quality has little worth without content. I have the greatest respect for you and your endeavors, I just don’t understand why you continuously contradict yourself?

B. Dalton

Dear B. Dalton:

There is a VAST difference between those no name "artists" who are inexplicably peddling their "limited edition" mediocre inkjet prints for hundreds and even thousands a print and publishing a magazine.

As far as Brooks cheapening the market for other "fine art" photographers who are lucky to sell one or two prints at ridiculous prices, this is absolute nonsense. It is the whole gallery owner, limited edition, artist snobbery, prints-as-a-commodity mentality that does this. This is not aimed at hard working photographers who rely on selling prints to support themselves, I can see selling great work at, say, up to $200-$300 a print. Beyond that, it seems to be to be aimed at very wealthy people who would be willing to spend a lot of money on something that is not worth that price. Unless,of course, your name is Sally Mann, Keith Carter, or Paul Caponigro.

As for Brooks having a double standard, I can't imagine you are suggesting that Brooks LOSE money publishing Lenswork. This is not being on both sides of the fence, as you say it is.

While I do not love Lenswork as much as I used to, and do not agree with the significant price increase, I would never expect a publisher to lose money on a business venture. Mediocre as it is these days sometimes, it is still miles ahead of any other regular photography publication. If Brooks hadn't set his own bar at $8.95 and then $9.95 per issue no one would be complaining about the $12.95.

But regardless of our rants about Lenswork, everyone who uses this site should support APUG (*edit). APUG is still the best bargain out there.

 

[Scott Peters]

I really enjoy/prefer the lenswork extended...is this less expensive to produce and perhaps something that can be kept down on the cost side of things?

The video's, interviews, extended galleries, bonus galleries, podcasts, etc. are very worthwhile and well done. I think you are way ahead of your time and competition with the lenswork extended...Keep up the good work.

 

[roteague]

But regardless of our rants about Lenswork, everyone who uses this site should support it. APUG is still the best bargain out there.

I don't think so. Supporting Lenswork is a matter of personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide. For me, only buy selected issues, simply because I don't like the digital content.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I don't think so. Supporting Lenswork is a matter of personal preference. It is up to each individual to decide. For me, only buy selected issues, simply because I don't like the digital content.

Robert - a piece of clarification - I meant to support APUG; sorry for the confusion. I meant it as a dig to those who post rants on APUG without subscribing to it.

 

[roteague]

Robert - a piece of clarification - I meant to support APUG; sorry for the confusion. I meant it as a dig to those who post rants on APUG without subscribing to it.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

 

[rjas]

I stopped subscribing when they started featuring more digital stuff than silver.

I find that there's usually one really good portfolio and a lot of stuff I don't like.

Perhaps they use more digital stuff because they aren't recieving any traditional work that fits with their style?

I let my subscription lapse because I wasn't interested in seeing large format images of trees and rocks - I would have liked to see more work that tells a story like the Nicaraguan images or the farming images from awhile ago. The Wakarimasen portfolio killed it for me - I just didn't "get" it and was kind of shocked to see an editor publish their portfolio in their own magazine. Felt like I paid for Brooks' self-promotion.

 

[Lee Shively]

I don't subscribe to anything anymore.

 

[panastasia]

For me the process matters, that's why I have a darkroom, use film, chemicals, and photographic paper. When Ansel Adams said that someone could make an image from one of his negatives in the future in an entirely new way or process, that was fine with him, he wouldn't necessarily like it but that was their business.

Curt

AA also said that he would be interested in digital imaging if he lived long enough to see it equal analog in fine art quality. I wonder what he would think about digital quality today considering it's limits regarding dynamic range with more detail in the shadows but lacking in the highlights, as digital provides. I read that in a magazine some years ago, dont remember which one.

 

[palewin]

This thread is already long enough without me, but I'm curious why so many are complaining about Lenswork publishing too much digital work. I thought the issue was the images. I fall into the group that buys Lenswork at the bookshop when the work appeals to me (the only subscription I have is to View Camera, because LF is my passion). But as a specific example, one of my favorite books is Joan Myers's "Along the Santa Fe Trail" which was entirely LF. But since Ms. Myers has a great "eye", I also love her digital work on Antarctica, some of which was recently published in Lenswork. Should I like her work less because in Antarctica she used a DSLR and an MF panoramic?

 

[jeroldharter]

I'm always disgusted by people who sit down and read entire magazines (or even books) for free in a bookstore. How cheap can you get? Go to a library. They just sit there forever, hogging a chair or a table and usually don't even put their dogeared magazine back on the shelf. Why not leave a barking dog tied up outside the door too? No wonder the publishers raise the prices for the rest of us.

 

[Jeremy]

The Wakarimasen portfolio killed it for me - I... was kind of shocked to see an editor publish their portfolio in their own magazine. Felt like I paid for Brooks' self-promotion.

Ditto. And this issue also came out right after Jensen said on the interweb that he gets so many great submissions that he doesn't have the space to publish. Finally, I'm not a big fan of getting email from Lenswork about the opportunity to buy Jensen's work. I don't think what he is doing is wrong, but I think there should be some distance between his photography and his magazine because it makes me then wonder how the portfolios in the magazine are chosen (i.e. my sister's brother is Jensen's vet so I've got my "in" kinda thing)

 

[Lee Shively]

I'm always disgusted by people who sit down and read entire magazines (or even books) for free in a bookstore. How cheap can you get? Go to a library. They just sit there forever, hogging a chair or a table and usually don't even put their dogeared magazine back on the shelf. Why not leave a barking dog tied up outside the door too? No wonder the publishers raise the prices for the rest of us.

Barnes and Noble encourages this and it doesn't appear to hurt their sales any. That's why the chairs are there. And what's the difference in going to the library to read a magazine or book for free and going to the local B&N?

But my opinion aside, I don't frequent the bookstore reading chairs much anymore due to the constant cell phone conversations taking place all around.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Finally, I'm not a big fan of getting email from Lenswork about the opportunity to buy Jensen's work. I don't think what he is doing is wrong, but I think there should be some distance between his photography and his magazine...

One way to sell your work is to create a following...a body of people who'll buy your work. Picker did it, Michael and Paula are doing it, and so is Brooks. This can be a good thing for the rest of us if we value the band wagon they're hawking their wares from.

I benefited from Pickers technological leaps and I enjoy LensWork's quality reproductions, even if they are always warm.

Murray

 

[roteague]

This thread is already long enough without me, but I'm curious why so many are complaining about Lenswork publishing too much digital work. I thought the issue was the images.

One of the reasons APUG exists is because some photographers feel the process is just as important as the composition. That is the reason for the complaint.

Should I like her work less because in Antarctica she used a DSLR and an MF panoramic?

I discriminate against those using DSLRs for fine art, simply because I find digital capture inferior to using film, and don't find it a tool for fine art. Digital is fine for reporting, but LensWork is supposed to be about fine art. So, I choose which issue based upon this.

 

[jeroldharter]

Barnes and Noble encourages this and it doesn't appear to hurt their sales any. That's why the chairs are there. And what's the difference in going to the library to read a magazine or book for free and going to the local B&N?

But my opinion aside, I don't frequent the bookstore reading chairs much anymore due to the constant cell phone conversations taking place all around.

Based on the information from Lenswork here, why would B&N not encourage it? You can buy their coffee at a huge markup while reading the publisher's soon to be shredded magazine for free. I can understand someone standing in the aisle, browsing magazines for something to buy. But I think it is pretty poor form to take a stack of magazines over to the couch and sack out for an hour with no intention of purchasing them. Could I test drive that Toyota for about 150,000 miles and then return it?

 

[Jeremy]

One way to sell your work is to create a following...a body of people who'll buy your work. Picker did it, Michael and Paula are doing it, and so is Brooks. This can be a good thing for the rest of us if we value the band wagon they're hawking their wares from.

I benefited from Pickers technological leaps and I enjoy LensWork's quality reproductions, even if they are always warm.

Murray

Murray, I agree with you and I don't know what I would do if I were in his place, but from my current perspective I now question how/why portfolios get picked for publication.

 

[lenswork]

I do hear you and the comments about publishing my own work. This came up in another thread a while back. Sorry it offends some of you, but may I ask a couple of questions?

I am a photographer, too, and was long before I was a publisher. If I'm not permitted to publish my own work, who would? What do you suppose would be Henry Rassmussen's, or Tim Anderson's, or Steve Simmons' reactions if I were to submit a portfolio of my work to them for publication in their magazines? It may not have occurred to any of you (like it has to me), but I am probably the one fine art photographer in the world who has no possibility of ever being published in any magazine, anywere -- except LensWork. So, at the risk of offending a few folks, I've taken the risk and published my own work three times in the magazine -- issue #15, issue #37, and issue #70. Three times in 14 years. I guess that's too much for some people.

BTW, does it also bother you that Michael and Paula publish their own books? What about John Sexton and Ventana Press (his wholly owned "publishing" company)? Is it wrong when Al Weber publicizes his own workshops in his newsletter? Should Bruce Barnbaum not use his own images to illustrate his workshop catalog -- or sell his own prints while he's teaching?

I chose to publish my Wakarimasen folio for two very specific reasons: First, it illustrated a point which we fully developed in the Editor's Comments of the following issue. My work -- alongside Joe Lipka's portfolio from the exact same location, photographed at the same time -- made, I think, a strong case illustrating the point of that article. I thought it was a good point and a lesson that was worth sharing both in concept and in finished form.

Second, in the fourteen years we've been publishing LensWork, we've received so few portfolios of abstracts I can probably count them on one hand. Oliver Gagliani in issue #14; Carl Chiarenza in issue #29, Tom Florio in issue #35, David L. Smith in issue #39, and my work in issue #70. That's an average of one abstract portfolio every three years. As those of you who have been reading APUG threads know, sometimes LensWork gets criticized for too many "rocks and trees" portfolios (although there are actually fewer of them than folks think) so we do like to spice things up from time to time with something a bit more "visually challenging." I really like my abstract work -- a lot. Okay, I am obviously not at all objective about it , but it's the truth. I think it's damned good. I thought it looked great in the magazine. Some folks agreed and wrote some very nice emails about it which I appreciated more than they know.

But, this is artwork we're talking about, and it is not to be expected that one body of work could be everyone's cup of tea. That's life. If I offended some of you, I guess that's the risk I take. I'll probably do it again. Maybe in another 4 or 5 years you'll see another project of mine in the magazine. I guess I should apologize in advance.

In the meantime, I have a compromise that we started with issue #72. We published an "Editor's Gallery" as a part of LensWork Extended (but not in the magazine) so I have a place to show some of my own work in a venue that might not ruffle feathers so much. And for those of you who think that it's an acceptable idea that a publisher of a photography magazine is a photographer himself, well, you're welcome to take a look from time to time at some of my work there. Acceptable?

Brooks

 

[Curt]

One of the reasons APUG exists is because some photographers feel the process is just as important as the composition. That is the reason for the complaint.
I discriminate against those using DSLRs for fine art, simply because I find digital capture inferior to using film, and don't find it a tool for fine art. Digital is fine for reporting, but LensWork is supposed to be about fine art. So, I choose which issue based upon this.

That about sums up what I was saying.

Thanks Robert,

Curt

 

[Curt]

Based on the information from Lenswork here, why would B&N not encourage it? You can buy their coffee at a huge markup while reading the publisher's soon to be shredded magazine for free. I can understand someone standing in the aisle, browsing magazines for something to buy. But I think it is pretty poor form to take a stack of magazines over to the couch and sack out for an hour with no intention of purchasing them. Could I test drive that Toyota for about 150,000 miles and then return it?

How true, I often have to pull a copy from the back of the stack to get one without major use.