-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Is it me or is Popular Photography not very good
- Thread starter Tom Yi
- Start date
James Masi
New member
You're only realizing this now? Its been "not very good" (which is being kind) for more than 20 years.
In all fairness, different magazines target different audiences. Some rely on mass-appeal and advertising money, keeping the cover price low and trying to cover the gamut from beginners to experienced photographers. Others aim for a smaller and mroe specialized audience and usually charge a higher cover price and rely on good editorial and portfolio content rather than advertising. I'm guessing PopPhoto falls into the first category and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want "deeper" content consider something like LensWork.
Guy
Guy
Larry Cooper
New member
Popular Photography has to be popular. Way too often in modern society (and many people have suggested digital photography is a major contributor to this generalizaton) popularity requires mediocrity. The general population does not understand or appreciate exceptional quality.
To be fair (actually I doubt I am but.....) Pop. Photog. often runs articles that can be very informative for anyone learning about photography. Its critical efforts, however, seldom criticize because of the danger of angering advertisers; and its decisions about artistic value of photographs seldom venture far from the norm.
To be fair (actually I doubt I am but.....) Pop. Photog. often runs articles that can be very informative for anyone learning about photography. Its critical efforts, however, seldom criticize because of the danger of angering advertisers; and its decisions about artistic value of photographs seldom venture far from the norm.
Gary Ayala
New member
Even the ads in PP are suckie (most of them anyway) - lol
-G-
-G-
Gary Ayala
New member
Larry Cooper said:
Far from norm ... I say not far from the lowest common denominator?
Jason C Doss
New member
Popular Photography, in my opinion, is nothing more than one giant advertisement. I bought it a few years back, not knowing any better, and their equipment reviews look like they were written by the product manufacturer. In fact, some lines in the review looked like they were taken directly out of the product brochure!
I have been a subscriber to Outdoor Photographer for a few years, but I'm letting that subscription lapse. It's a good magazine with some EXCELLENT photos in it, but I can get faster, better, more accurate and (when it comes to product reviews) less biased information on the net.
I have been a subscriber to Outdoor Photographer for a few years, but I'm letting that subscription lapse. It's a good magazine with some EXCELLENT photos in it, but I can get faster, better, more accurate and (when it comes to product reviews) less biased information on the net.
Sid Jervis
pro member
FWIW I have no intention of starting a UK - US war here.
After spending three months in the USA recently I found many of the photo magazines a bit bland.
There seems to be an "arrangement" where reviews are not exactly critical of products, the reviews seem to have gone into a politically correct mode, where things are not really bad or good.
I would not dare suggest that a bad review may cause an advertiser to take business away from a magazine, but who really knows?
Many UK magazines have been honest about products in their reviews, but sadly it seems that the UK is now following the USA modus operandi.
Where are we meant to get honest reviews? Please don't say the web !
After spending three months in the USA recently I found many of the photo magazines a bit bland.
There seems to be an "arrangement" where reviews are not exactly critical of products, the reviews seem to have gone into a politically correct mode, where things are not really bad or good.
I would not dare suggest that a bad review may cause an advertiser to take business away from a magazine, but who really knows?
Many UK magazines have been honest about products in their reviews, but sadly it seems that the UK is now following the USA modus operandi.
Where are we meant to get honest reviews? Please don't say the web !
Jason C Doss
New member
Sid Jervis said:
Why not the web? Sure, it takes a little effort to weed out the noise, but it's not *that* hard.
It's as easy as being able to recognize that the photo mags are writing reviews that are approved by the manufacturer of the product under review.
Harvey Moore
New member
Jason C Doss said:
I also find the web to be viable source of equipment review. Information is more timely, many photographers post reviews and comparisons on their sites. Several excellent boards like this one for reviews and specific questions being quickly answered by qualified individuals. Even DPR is a good source for Camera specifications and functions.
harvey
Alain Briot
pro member
Sid Jervis said:
Usually from places & people who accept no advertising....
I too found that UK mag's are better and more honest. The US mags tend to be more bland as they seem to want to be non offensive to everyone.
I don't think this would start a US/UK war or anything.
As mentioned above, the web provides a better source than magazines for most reviews except for some tutorials, my personal feeling is that they do a better job.
I don't think this would start a US/UK war or anything.
As mentioned above, the web provides a better source than magazines for most reviews except for some tutorials, my personal feeling is that they do a better job.
Will_Perlis
New member
"I too found that UK mag's are better and more honest. The US mags tend to be more bland as they seem to want to be non offensive to everyone."
I fully agree. The same goes for the motorcycle mags IMX. We do better with guns and ammo, tho'.
(As an aside, I no longer attempt to judge a photographer's skills at exposure or focus from what's displayed in any big circulation magazine. After seeing what some of my shots looked like in a book (name withheld to protect the guilty) compared with the originals, I'm figuring a great many problems are or csn be introduced later on. Mark Tucker, James Russell, et al. mentioned this over at Rob G's a while back but IMX it really becomes meaningful when it's one's own stuff.)
I fully agree. The same goes for the motorcycle mags IMX. We do better with guns and ammo, tho'.
(As an aside, I no longer attempt to judge a photographer's skills at exposure or focus from what's displayed in any big circulation magazine. After seeing what some of my shots looked like in a book (name withheld to protect the guilty) compared with the originals, I'm figuring a great many problems are or csn be introduced later on. Mark Tucker, James Russell, et al. mentioned this over at Rob G's a while back but IMX it really becomes meaningful when it's one's own stuff.)
Sid Jervis
pro member
You have a good point there.Alain Briot said:
There are at least two other things that colour a personal review.
1. If you ask for a review or comments about a brand the reviewer does not support.
2. When the reviewer owns the item, and paid loads of money for it. (self justification mode).
I think the best way is to develop a healthy mistrust of reviews and understand that more people will bother to complain online than praise online.
Alain Briot
pro member
Sid Jervis said:
Another excellent approach is to look at the photographs created with the product by the photographer doing the review . . .