When I look through magazines and see work by so called professional photographers, that is really substandard, I get irritated. I see all kinds of amateurish mistakes like a lack of understanding of DOF, poor framing and incorrect exposures. The magazine world seems to be quite political as far as who they use for their photo needs. Some of the larger calendar companies can be this way also. Being that the pro ranks are so cluttered with so-so photographers, it makes it difficult for anyone to break into this field full time. Does anyone have the 35mm Fisheye and would like to do a field test for this forum??? SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 29, 2000

Answers

I'm talking about travel magazines since that is the type of photography I am most interested. The main culprets are Conde Naste, Islands and Caribbean Travel and Life. Check them out some time and give me your opinion. They do have some good photographers but they also have some that probably got into the business because they knew the right people. It sure wasn't because of their talent! SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 30, 2000.

I agree Patrick. Conde Naste reminds me of the French nouvelle cuisine that looks more like a work of art than something one could actually eat. You don't get enough to eat. They missed the whole point. Weird photographic styles fit into the same category. They're trying to break new ground but in their attempt, they make themselves look like a mockery of photography. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), February 10, 2000.

What kind of magazines? If you mean the "photography" mags, I usually find a lot of those photos very stock and very boring, so much so as to not even bother with an analysis. If you mean something else, what? Nature, fashion, etc...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), January 29, 2000.

Steve,

I've sat and let your comments eat on me for a while and this is my view in agreement. The so-called 'slick' publications to include fashion, editorial, and photographic arts magazines MUST be politically charged. I fully believe that some of the 'trends' in photographic presentation had to result from an assignment with a deadline where-in the photographer made a dreadful mistake and sold the editor on it's 'neuvo-style' value because it was different. The problem with innovation as concerns style is that different is considered innovative. In absence of any other talent, when the standard is a high quality photograph using the tools with the greatest skill and effort then 'different' is often a shoddy shadow of that effort embraced for its 'uniqueness', not necessarily its absolute quality. With the explosion of publications this 'unique' style also is faster and cheaper to produce with the end result being the forcing of inferior product on the public while telling them this is what is innovative so you HAVE to like it. Just look at the crap shown by the popular designers (clothing) and purported to be innovative. The vast majority is repulsive at first glance but the public eventually embraces it because it's the latest thing and since it's Donna Karan it MUST be good. It's a sad commentary on our direction as a society, but pendulums always swing both ways. The cream of the photographic talent will eventually rise to the top if and when the public makes its economic statement refusing to buy in to shoddy styles and trends. I would call this my $.02 worth but I probably overdid it.

-- Patrick Drennon (sierraengineering@worldnet.att.net), February 10, 2000.