Digital BW, The Print

You can always re-subscribe. Publishers and advertisers care only 
about hard numbers. Nothing gets a magazines attention more than 
cancelled subscriptions...for every person who really cares enough to 
go to the trouble of cancelling there are probably 100s who feel the 
same...publishers and advertisers know that.

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alessandro Pardi 
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> Wise, wise words.
> I think that letting them know how many people are in this forum 
may be a
> better policy than simply unsubscribing from their magazine. Maybe 
they'd
> change their mind and reconsider the statement that "digital is 
based more
> on technology and conventional photography is based on 
craftsmanship"
> (exactly the same reasoning applies to painting compared to analog
> photography, by the way).
> And if a magazine ain't enough, they might even start thinking about
> creating a new one...
>  
> Alessandro Pardi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: earregardless [mailto:earregardless@y...]
> Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2002 07.17
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, 
in 
> his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and 
white's "connection 
> with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our 
> editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen 
> continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of 
> practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's 
> impossible to please both sides in the same forum."  
> 
> I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that 
says 
> that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities 
that 
> collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion, 
> digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is 
> based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on 
conventional 
> photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."
> 
> Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's 
> entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time 
> reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of 
developments 
> in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that 
> suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any 
discussion 
> of digital prints.  
> 
> Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of 
> February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and 
not 
> without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as 
> far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white 
photography 
> (and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards 
but 
> is rather reflecting popular opinion.
> 
> Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir - 
> perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting 
> Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That 
> will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a 
> discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital 
> photography. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]