dirty dave

Just recieved my new Popular Photography magazine and Outdoor Photograhy does anyone else receive these or any others. They use too give me a lot of information but in the past few years it seems to be mostly advertisement and some so called pro telling me that I need some new equipment or camera and software that most of us can't afford. I have gotten to the point that I am more impressed to see another photographer with an older camera and a kit lens. I did an inventory of my photograhy equipment and started thinking how much did I really need and how much money I have wasted on things that went out of date in a few months or just used once or twice and never touched again. I have been guilty of chasing pixels with every new camera but I guess I am at the point of enough is enough. I have learned more in the past few months on this forum than the past two years from magazines. Now it time I learn how to use Ebay. Like to hear your thoughts have I been awakened or do I need to spend more money to make money?

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

"...do I need to spend more money to make money?"

Depends on how you want to make money. What had you in mind?

"...an older camera and a kit lens."

Put a better lens on even an old Nikon D70 and you may be amazed at how much better the quality is. I use a kit lens only for pics which will be run very small. And I use Leicas when I'm travelling because they're smaller and lighter than reasonably durable SLRs.

"used to give me a lot of information..."

Maybe you've learned most of what they can teach you, or maybe they're concentrating on stuff which is just minor variations on what they've covered before (especially the bloody software).

That's why I set up my web-site, for people who didn't want reviews of every single bit of new software, and nine out of ten new cameras (though you find surprisingly few lens reviews). Nor did I want to be beholden to advertisers, though I was foolish to drop the subscription model for the site and make it voluntary donations only.

Cheers,

R.

pigpen

Not just you!

I brought this up a couple of weeks ago when someone started a thread about which magazines does everybody read. I mentioned how 75% of the pages are some type of add. I guess its something we all have to deal with. Just like newspapers, thanx to the internet, subscriptions are down and costs of printing magazines are up. I'm one of those people that like to hold the magazine/newspaper in my hand, its going the same way for books!

nyweb2001

I didn't renew my subscriptions for Photography mags....you're right....they cater to their advertisers ! It's all about the money ! I did however renew National Geographic....the photos in that mag give me something to aim for !

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm sure the manufacturers love photo mags. Not only can they advertise their products, but the magazines always feature great new products that we just must have.

I've gotten into the practice of removing pages that have useful information. I staple the pages together and put them into a folder. It beats having to save the entire magazine.

pigpen

Good idea! My wife is constantly complaining about all the space my 4 subscriptions take up. I will do this!

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

I get a few photography mags such as Digital Photographer, and Shutterbug etc. but only because I got free subs to them. When those subs run out, I won't renew.

My gripe with most of these mags is that most articles seem to be on post processing techniques.
These types of articles improperly (in my view) encourage the 'don't worry about making a good photo with your camera, you can always take care of all that later.' philosophy.
All they talk about is running your images through six different programs and what can be done to your images in post.
It's kind of...'just put your camera on auto, point it in the general direction of what you wish to capture, and take of the rest later in the computer.'

So what we end up with is a bunch of bad, lazy photographers, but very good computer and graphic arts technicians.
That's fine if your goal is to create photo illustrations, but these *are* different then photographs, where the person behind the camera had to understand how the camera works and be cabable of using it to create an outstanding image right out of the camera.

pigpen

I agree! These magazines are no longer about photography, but graphic design. Unfortunately, they have to cater to the majority, and the majority of people right now, know computers, not photography. Just one more example of how digital has destroyed photography. Its just evolution. Look what cassettes did to LPs, and CDs did to cassettes. We give up quality for convienence. If the majority of these people had to shoot with film, they would put down the cameras because it would involve effort and learning.

I liken it to learning to drive. Everyone should learn how to drive a stick shift, then go to automatic later if they want. To really learn "photography", you must first shoot with film!!

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

YOU think it's a problem! You should try writing for them! That's why I do far fewer magazine articles than I used to (and, as noted, why I started the web site). I just can't get excited about computer programs, and I can't see the point of a new learning curve every six months. The most boring imaginable thing in a magazine? A screen dump!

Cheers,

R.

nyweb2001

All the mags focus on PS....I just started taking shots with the expectation of using the shots straight from the camera. I rarely works but it forces me to spend more time setting the shot up !

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

[quote=pigpen][ To really learn "photography", you must first shoot with film!![/quote]

You said it brother!

I've seen people out in the field that show up with *thousands* of dollars worth of gear. Really high quality and high dollar stuff. But you come to find out later that they had never previously owned or even used a film SLR.
Many of these guys have zero clue about what to do with their expensive camera equipment to insure they come back with a good shot.
They end up spraying and praying and hope to salvage something later in post processing.

As far as the photo mags go, maybe they have to hype all those imaging software programs to satisfy their sponsors which advertise heavily in these mags. If that's the case you do have to question the integrity of their reviews.

dirty dave

wow I was thinking I was the only one. I would like to see a contest with photos straight from the camera with no post processing and shot in manual mode or even better film. I kinda believe that a photo comes from a camera a picture comes from a computer some will understand what I mean and some will not. ( I recently did a photo of fog on a lake and mountain and was asked how I did that in photoshop put the fog in I just shook my head and said it took timing and hours to work on that shot and nothing was done in d#& photoshop it was what was there) And we are not hurting anything by not buying all the crap there is no digital camera I know off that is made in the USA ABC news keeps talking about buying American mabe they need to take a close look at thier cameras and broadcast equipment.

nyweb2001

You're pushing me to get my old, cheap Minolta film camera out ! None of my digital shots look as sharp and clear as my film shots ! I WOULD like to see somewhere that has SOOC shots ! The problem is, most contests run a few days and it might take me a few weeks to use up a roll, get it processed, scanned, and uploaded !

pigpen

I had a 20x30 of a sunflower field at a show I recently did. There was one very large sunflower to the right of the image, in complete focus. The rest of the flowers, the tree line behind, and the blue sky behind the trees were full blown bokeh. EVERYONE assumed that this was PP. When I told them that is was done by shooting at f2.8, they looked at me as if I had three heads. Even after explanation, most of them did not get it. Some PP is necessary, alot of digital shots are flat. When shooting film, if I wanted bold greens for waterfalls, I used Fuji Reala, bright colors for fall, Kodak Vivid, skin tone for portraits, Fuji S. I'm not totally against PP, it is necessary in most cases. Just not a fan of overdone stuff. I've only been doing digital for just over a year. Getting quality film requires ordering it. You can't something (at least around here) right away. Finding someplace that doesn't have an 18 year old moron processing your film is another problem, if you can find someone to process it at all.

HDR, for example. I use it just for proper exposure. I am very careful with things like HDR, and ORTON effect. Software is suppose to be a tool, not a way to hide the fact you took a terrible photo!!

naturalite Loc: Up state NY

EEEGads! I haven't picked up a photo rag mag in 10 years. It's not like years ago when I used to read National Geography & Look magazine. To read the latest articles and view breath taking photos. Now all mag's are chocked full of crap. You get very little from them anymore.