"photo technique" magazine. Any subscribers/readers?

[skyrick]

What do you think of the new format? A few articles had very bad, difficult to read typography. They addressed this on their website and it should be resolved by their next issue.

Overall I like the new look and direction they seem to be taking. Some past issues barely touched on analog photography, the the Jan/Feb issue looks to be at least 60% traditional. Best part of the new issue is a great commentary about change by David Vestal.

Rick

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Haven't seen the new one yet. Read about it though. I love the way they are including more traditional material of late. The printing series last issue (Nov/Dec) was a great read. Got me thinking about my own work. Good writing to make me do that.

 

[David Brown]

I hope they do change the fonts. I could barely read parts of it. My wife, who is in publishing, said it looked to her as if they were running out of ink!

 

[winger]

I'm in the middle of it now. I had decided not to renew my subscription, but I might change my mind. They'd better change the type, though. It's not easy to read (and my eyes are in good shape).

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Everyone,

I have no problem with the "normal" font used in the David Vestal and Bruce Barnbaum articles, but the "high tech" style used elsewhere is an amazingly bad choice. I've been a subscriber for decades and expect to continue, but I hope to see a reversion to more readable print.

Konical

 

[Nancy Gutrich]

The new format was a vast improvement...I agree there is a typography problem... where the images were annotated, unreadable. The choice of articles... seemed a new direction.

 

[Mike Wilde]

I might bite again. I did subscribe for a few years about 4 years back, but when renewal time came I was turned off by the digital leanings, and spent the money on film and paper instead.

 

[Seabird]

I might bite again. I did subscribe for a few years about 4 years back, but when renewal time came I was turned off by the digital leanings, and spent the money on film and paper instead.

Ditto (almost exactly except I let my sub die about 6 years ago)!

It used to be such a GREAT magazine that its fall from grace was all the more tragic. Here's hoping it can regain its former glory.

Carey Bird
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/index.html

 

[36cm2]

Interesting to see people say a change in focus toward traditional printing is underway. I gave up on this mag two years ago, but did get their reprints of older b&w printing special editions.

 

[Merg Ross]

Interesting to hear that analog is back in fashion with the magazine. I subscribed for twenty years, through all of the name changes (Darkroom Photography, at one time). It became much too digital for my taste, since analog is all that I comprehend after fifty years of making silver images. Perhaps I can be enticed to return. Is it available on the newstand?

www.mergross.com

 

[msage]

I liked the old layout better, but will continue to subscribe.
Michael

 

[Lee L]

My count for the Jan/Feb 2010 issue portfolio or technical articles is 2 analog, one with both analog and digital, and three digital. The reproductions are much better, and on thicker, glossier stock. It feels a bit more portfolio oriented as opposed to the traditional how-to articles. There is a digital color correction article by Ctein, and an appreciation of Kodachrome. I wouldn't say it's a big change over recent analog/digital balance. The technical aspects outside of the Ctein article are more suggestive than specific, one of them on chemically staining and toning silver enlarging paper for abstract non-camera images.

It was available at the two bookstores I went to this evening.

Lee

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Barnes and Noble generally carries PT on their racks.

 

[photomem]

The thing that really annoyed me is the number of pages dedicated to Julie Blackmon. I like the images, but largely they saare the same images as were in Color magazine a couple months ago.

 

[skyrick]

This is the only issue to date I've read every article but one. I skipped the one about color correction. I don't own a copy of Photoshop.

Rick