Digital BW, The Print

>>>>
really? I think it's generally pretty blah, with the same old same
old rocks water trees or some old, slightly unknown photographer from
the 40's or 50's they are trying to promote so maybe he/she will
become collectable, the rest of it is stuck in the N. American fine
art aesthetic, somewhere at the beginning of the 20th century. Some
so so nudes. Or the obligatory article on someone who uses passe
total lack of depth of field and loads of blurry backgrounds. All set
to fill a thousand calendar pages.
 I find about once in every two or three editions there is an
intersting article - Horace Bristol in this one.
>>>>>>

Yes, there is a lot of cliche, but that's always been true of any
photo mag.  You have to have the masses so the cream can rise to the
top.  I'd rather have B&W mag than no B&W mag.

I like the "slightly unknown photographer from the 40's or 50's"
articles.  I love photography and enjoy seeing and reading about
others' work and lives.  The editor's motivation for printing them is
irrelevent to me.

The mag's anti-digi stance is also irrelevent, in this regard.  To me
it's all photography.  I love looking at photos and reading about
them.  Doesn't matter how the prints were made.  Besides, what I'm
looking at in the mag is halftone dots.  I would rather see the mag
continue than die, and I'm considering subscribing just to help
insure that.

Speaking of photo mags, "Modern Photography" was one of my favorites
because they showcased work in a nice way.  For someone who loved   
photography there was usually some good reading material in every
issue. I always felt that it should have won out over "Popular".

And has anyone ever subscribed to "Shots"?  All about the love of
photography, printed on newsprint, and as equally valid as "B&W" in my
book.  Great photo mag!

Regards, - cj