Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Photo Industry Commentary  (Read 4958 times)
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« on: September 02, 2002, 02:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#FF7F00\']The comments on the state of the photographic press I think have to be taken regionally. I agree that US magazines are truly dreadful, at least the ones that I've seen - but that, I'm afraid, doesn't only apply to photographic titles.  British magazines are better - to some extent. Outdoor Photography is quite good, but somehow doesn't have much character. Amateur Photographer is a useless rag full of old duffers moaning about "computers making photographs". Practical Photography is better, and is improving, but the reviews are useless. Everything gets 89 or 90%. A review of the Contax N1 Digital was given about half a page, and of course it got 90%.  But the technical articles are good.  The real gems are in French. Chasseur d'Images, which really walks the talk, is sometimes a little heavy going but is incredible value compared to the US Popular Photography, and Reponses Photo, my favourite, is just a gem.  The quality of both of these will ensure that they survive alongside electronic publishing. And they don't have long lead times for reviews either. The Epson 2100 was in both before it was much discussed online.

Learn French, people  Smiley[/font]
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2002, 09:34:14 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I agree about Chasseur D'Image... the best technical magazine in the world. Wish they did an English language edition so more people could read it.

As for Petersons; it's simply an advertising vehicle. It hasn't been a "real" magazine in years. Everything in it is puffery.

Michael[/font]
Logged
AWeil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2002, 03:49:34 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']As for the magazine market, you are right - it is geting worse and most magazines are running behind the information on the internet and the (few) good forums available here.
But you have to consider the target market.
German example: 'Photo Magazin' - consumer mag, oriented towards hobby photographers, mostly male, interested in consumer products and having the new one out right away. No negative reviews ever - always supporting major advertisers - and focusing on consumer technology.
 'Photography' - founded originally by the German photographic society and still partially supported by it, has fewer advertisers and is slowly moving in the same direction of the first mag. It has less reviews of equippment, but much more reviews on portifolios of artists and reports on 'how to' both darkroom and digital - but they are about a year/six month back on the subject compared to the net.
'Pro-Foto', the magazine for the pros - featuring advertising campaigns and such. This mag is on the edge of technology, nothing is innovative enough - but there is no critique - advertisers are too important. Yet it is entertaining, fun even.
Last 'Schwarz-Weiß' (Black and White) is a magazine for the most serious black and white printers and users of large format cameras. Darkroom only, this magazine has a hard time to adjust to the advent of the digital technology. They occasionally run an articel on digital processing (very knowledgable) but somehow do not dare to embrace it. Artist portifolios are excellent. They are really funny when endorsing a web site of interest - almost embarrased how they say that this web site is in English. Well this mag only appears four times a year - it is that exclusive or underfunded.
What you get here, however, is a mirror of the market. Lots of consumers snapping family and vacation- which is perfectly ok, quite a few serious hobby people, interested in the real stuff and working on it, the pros, who have to play to survive and well, the rest - the very committed to quality and image most of whom are lucky to not have to make a living from that.
My argument: you can not blame them. This is reality.
The web here has an important function - it is democracy in the business. It serves all of us.

Why am I interseted in this subject? I teach marketing at a business school, and knowing the scene of photography (working in this field myself), I sometimes use it as an example.

Greetings from Germany

Angela[/font]
Logged
Marshal
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2002, 10:49:45 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Good to try out the new forum. Glad you've got it up and running Michael.

I really enjoyed and agree with your editorial or commentary about the state of the photographic industry and some of its quirks or foibles. Some of these companies really don't get it. I've experienced some of the aggravations you have, such as the lack of local camera department salesmen who really know their stuff. I've dealt with some salespeople at some places who were absolutely clueless. I could go on and on about my own personal experiences which mirror many of yours, but it's getting late. Thanks for a good article once again and another good issue of the Video Journal. Looking forward to seeing some video from Iceland soon.[/font]
Logged
Marshal
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2002, 10:51:53 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']About the long lead times of some magazines, Petersen's Photographic finally got around to doing a review on the Olympus E20 for its most recent issue, 8-10 months after the  release of the camera. Another magazine did a review on the Nikon D1X about 10-12 months after its U.S. release.  Huh[/font]
Logged
Colin Fieldgate
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2002, 11:38:05 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Just to add that in the UK some Pro camera dealers e.g. LCE for Canon & Nikon, get keener discounts from the manufacturers to account for the fact that they want them to carry expensive equipment for rental e.g. long lenses for the professionals. Try getting that kind of kit over the web in a hurry!! [/font]
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad