TraditionalPhotographer.NET / General Discussion / Books, Magazines, Gallery Reviews & Shows / Lenswork / Latest Posts

RE: Lenswork

roteague — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:08:05 GMT

So what is the latest on LensWork? Is Brooks still going to only offer it via subscription? I enjoy the "occasional" issue, but not enough to subscribe.

RE: Lenswork

roteague — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:49:31 GMT

I bought the latest issue, partly because it may be the last I can get and partly because of Bruce Barnbaum's images. They are stunning, to say the least.

RE: Lenswork

DavidS — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:08:13 GMT

Bruce Barnbaum's photography is not only incredible, but the human being, Bruce Barnbaum is a gentleman and an intellect. I have had the pleasure of speaking with him on more than one occasion and he is one of the most fascinating, kind and philisophical human beings I have ever met. We're going to be re-publishing an interview we did with him earlier in 2006 in our upcoming Collector's Edition 2008 issue. I highly recommend anyone get a copy of Tone Poems 1 and 2.

RE: Lenswork

mallard67 — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:07:57 GMT

Robert, I have to agree with you on the attitude that digital encourages these days. I personally subscribe to LensWork because I really like reading the articles and interviews of other photographers (and obviously looking at their work). The whole thing about not putting the magazine out on newsstand, I understand it is a financial decision, I'm sure it costs a lot of money to print magazines that will never be purchased. Not to mention, they also totally put an "environmentally friendly" spin on it, like it wastes less paper, less trees...ok so it does, but I'm not blind, so lets not cover up the underlying theme here. In today's business world, all anyone cares about is the bottom line, money. The exact same reason many are switching to digital. It's the same attitude. So, I hope this isn't foreshadowing what's to come in future issues of LensWork, because it will only be a matter of time before the bean counters will want to see more growth and profit. This was a big move, and I hope they can top it next time for accounting when the time comes, without sacrificing their quality--because I can see it going down that road if they are not very careful.

On a lighter note, has anyone looked at page 77? That photograph really caught my eye as outstanding--some very nice images from Bruce Barnbaum.

RE: Lenswork

DavidS — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:14:33 GMT

Yes, but then publisher's see only 30-40% of what you paid for that magazine.

It does kind of concern me that LW will not be available to subscribers anymore. I don't know which distributor they used, but if they only had a 30% sell through rate, they could've backed off on the number of copies per store and thus wasted less. 30% is about the industry average of how much gets sold on newsstands. But I'm not Brooks, nor do I play him on TV, so only he knows the reason why this happened. Maybe it's a cost cutting manuever along with reducing waste. And of course, he won't have to deal with all of the paperwork and BS that distributors give you. If I had a nickel....

RE: Lenswork

roteague — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:29:26 GMT

[quote][b]DavidS (3/15/2008)[/b][hr]A year is only $39. I say you go for it. And well, while you're out there subscribing to fine art photography magazines...............................[/quote]

I'll keep that in mind, you never know. One of the reasons I don't generally subscribe to magazines is simply because I can normally buy them in the bookstore weeks before I get them in the mail. But, I am considering subscribing, to a couple.

RE: Lenswork

DavidS — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:25:29 GMT

A year is only $39. I say you go for it. And well, while you're out there subscribing to fine art photography magazines...............................

RE: Lenswork

Jorge Gasteazoro — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:09:52 GMT

You will have to do a search on your own, both APUG and the LF forum have that stupid image verification strings that are impossible to decipher. Its there though.

RE: Lenswork

roteague — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:43:02 GMT

[quote][b]DavidS (3/15/2008)[/b][hr]Jorge, do you have the ENTIRE podcast or letter from the publisher that he said that in? What context was it in?[/quote]

It was the focus of a major discussion on APUG a 2~3 years ago.

RE: Lenswork

roteague — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:34:23 GMT

[quote][b]DavidS (3/15/2008)[/b][hr]The mark of a successful business is that business having several spin-off projects and not relying soley upon your core business.

If you go to LensWork's website, you see A LOT of different spin-off porjects. LensWork Extended, LensWork Workshops, Podcasts, etc. Although I have a personal preference towards traditional photography, I have always been a huge fan of LensWork. I aspire to get the quality of our black and white reproductions as good as some of his... and we're well on our way to doing that.

No magazine sells 100% of what they put on newsstands, and I guess LW is around long enough that many people know about it. It would save them considerbale amounts of money to print less 12,000 less copies of their publication -- but I guess, in the end, how are new people that are coming to the market going to find them?[/quote]

There is a book I've seen, I forgot the author or title, whose premise is that; having multiple sources of income. I think that is a good idea.

I understand why Brooks is going this route, unfortunately, it has the unintended consequence of cutting off those who buy the "occasional" issue - like me. My dilemma right now is whether the traditional content of the magazine outweighs the digital content. My biggest issue with digital is the attitude that it inspires - one where images are nothing more than a commodity, with no value - not with the technology itself. Kind of makes what I've been doing for 30+ years worthless. While Brooks seems to feel he needs to stand against industry practices, I need to stand up to the attitude that digital seems to engender.

RE: Lenswork

DavidS — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:24:47 GMT

Jorge, do you have the ENTIRE podcast or letter from the publisher that he said that in? What context was it in?

RE: Lenswork

DavidS — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:23:34 GMT

The mark of a successful business is that business having several spin-off projects and not relying soley upon your core business.

RE: Lenswork

Jorge Gasteazoro — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:19:30 GMT

The biggest problem I have with this, is the hypocresy of it. WHen he was asked why not sell Lenswork for $3 then, he came up with the rationalization that Lenswork was more like a little "book" than a magazine, and that since he took so much effort on printing it that it should have a greater value. So is fine for him to expect being rewarded for his effort but a photographer should not expect the same.

We have it bad enough with people thinking all you gotta do is press the shutter to have the publisher of a [b]photography[/b] encouraging people to think this way.

RE: Lenswork

roteague — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:43:10 GMT

[quote][b]Jorge Gasteazoro (3/15/2008)[/b][hr]It does not affect me whatsoever. In fact, I cancelled my subscription, when I had one, after the first issue. I don't mind the digital stuff, but I absolutely refuse to support a magazine editor that bites the hand that feeds him. He thinks photographs should sell for $20, fine by me, but then he should sell his magazine for $2.

[/quote]

Yes, I always thought that stance was unnecessarily hurtful to those trying to make a living at, or marketing fine art.

RE: Lenswork

Jorge Gasteazoro — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:02:07 GMT

It does not affect me whatsoever. In fact, I cancelled my subscription, when I had one, after the first issue. I don't mind the digital stuff, but I absolutely refuse to support a magazine editor that bites the hand that feeds him. He thinks photographs should sell for $20, fine by me, but then he should sell his magazine for $2.

Lenswork

roteague — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:13:20 GMT

So, Lenswork is going to a subscription only model. How does this affect you?

I only occasionally read Lenswork, simply because there is just too much digital content. Granted, at the sizes that the magazine publishes, they can look quite good. I just don't consider digital a medium for fine art. Because of this, I have never subscribed to it. I'm on the fence about subscribing - currently, I buy the occasional issue at the newstand.