|
|
Post by craigh on Dec 9, 2007 22:32:07 GMT -5
I agree with Wayne & Ron that the internet is "killing" magazines, But I would rather read from the printed page instead of a computer. It's easier on my eyes. But I mostly do not like the magazines now since I have absoutely no interest in digital.
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Dec 10, 2007 0:26:50 GMT -5
....Obviously you don't collect Russian cameras. It's my understanding that in Russian, things like ships, planes, cameras, etc., all are masculine gender, so all my zorkies, FEDs and Kievs are guys. Even the women in the instruction manuals from the '50s and '60s look like guys! In that era, wasn't it popular for all Russian women to look like Krushchev? ----- Sorry, couldn't resist.  |
|
|
|
Post by davesworld on Dec 10, 2007 5:57:26 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more! I just purchased a magazine entitled "Camera Australia-- Film & digital for photographers" And for my hard earned buck all I got was a huge range of digital camera reviews and one small article about a guy that went on a photo shoot to Japan, and as he was the only one in the group shooting film, how he felt so out of place.  Digital is a reality, and yes myself and many others don't like it, but reluctantly It will win, But I still can't help but thinking that it is just like conceiving a baby at midnight, giving birth at 3 seconds past 12 and if you don't like the look of your child, you change it via your computer!... and it's all done by 12.15! I love film, It's all about what you see through the veiwfinder, the waiting, the wanting, the excitement, the walking away having not taken a shot, (I surpose the hunters out there might identify with this, you can blow the world away with an automatic, but the single perfect shot with a bolt action rifle is what gives that satisfaction). The expectation of the image in your mind and the build up to the final results back from the proccessor, (I have four children) film, in a smaller way, is like waiting and watching your kids born!  Dave |
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 10, 2007 9:05:02 GMT -5
For me the internet has killed magazines. I get what I need on the net and most magazines available locally are 3/4 advertising anyway. I was dragged kicking and screaming into this brave new world and I am rather liking it. I still prefer film cameras but if they ever come out with a digital that operates like a film camera with the right analog controls and a reasonable price I will be using one.
Bob
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Dec 10, 2007 18:19:58 GMT -5
This thread seems to have developed into two themes. 1. Is the internet killing magazines? 2. Film vs Digital (again). So I'll have a personal spout on both aspects.
1. Is the internet killing magazines?
I can speak with a little authority here as until he past year or two I've been writing for and editing magazines since the 1950s, full time since 1964 and freelance since 1979.
I can speak here only for the UK magazine market, but I suspect it's much the same picture in most countries where the internet is widespread. In one respect yes, the internet has killed, and is still killing, a certain type of magazine, but broadly no; the number of magazines in circulation in the UK has actually increased slightly over the past three years, going by ISSN numbers. There is also as fair number of magazines being published without a registered ISSN number (it's not compulsory), usually small-circulation subscription-only specialist interest magazines.
In the hard commercial world, without which there wouldn't be any magazines, or internet for that matter, a magazine depends on two connected things - circulation and advertising.
Moan as much as you like about increasing cover prices, but it's hard fact that the cover price barely meets the increasing cost of printing and distribution, let alone building rent, wages for productive staff, overheads like non-productive support staff (accounts, personnel, office cleaning and maintenance etc) plus heating, lighting, telephone, internet, office equipment renewals and replacements, office overheads like stationery, postage, replacement software, employers liability insurance, employers contribution to employee national insurance, staff sickness insurance, libel insurance, and the hundred and one other things that make up general overheads. A magazine publisher needs a large income and large cash flow just to stay in business before he makes a profit and, if it's a public limited company, declares and pays a shareholders dividend.
Where does all this money come from? The only place it can come from - from advertising revenue.
It's quite widely, and wrongly, thought that editorial features are written to please advertisers by praising their products.The answer is that, for all reputable magazines, they are not. Such features usually go into advertising supplements or appear as 'advertorial ' where an advertiser buys a page and his PR people write a semi-editorial feature. Usually, such pages have 'advertiser's announcement' at the top.
An editor's first target, and that of his journalists, is the reader. Giving the readers what they want to see is the whole key to increasing and keeping circulation. Circulation figures are the life blood of a magazine. The higher the circulation, the higher the advertising rates, and the big advertisers with big budgets are interested only in magazines with good circulation figures. Plus, they want to be sure that the mass of the readership is interested in the product they make and are likely to buy it.
What usually happens is that the editor and his staff have weekly meetings and produce rough 'dummies' giving the subject matter and 'weight' (size, and position in the mag) of what they expect to put in the next two or three issues. The advert space sales people take this and try to sell 'support' advertising to back up the editorial.
Take a photograhic magazine for example. If the editor's market research shows that well over 90% of people who take photographs use digital cameras he isn't going to give much, if any, editorial space to film cameras because it won't attract many readers - say, maybe, a couple of hundred out of a circulation of 20-25,000 or more. As well as reviews of the latest cameras and equipment and product comparitive tests, he's going to plan features on getting the best from your scanner, producing good ink-jet colour prints, tips and hints on using picture editing programs like Photoshop, Paint-Shop Pro and the like - often with a step-by-step CD to go with it. All the things that aren't so easy to find on the internet - he's a fool if he doesn't know what's out there. Plus well illustrated features on using a camera to produce good pictures instead of just snapshots. Plus ca change etc ...
Both editors and advertisers do a lot of market research (or their market research departments do) If they don't stay with the mass market, they don't stay in business. It's as simple as that.
Classic cameras and camera collecting is an editorial dead duck. The bubble's burst. The boom of twenty years ago is over. The big classic camera dealers have gone, and with them the mass of temporary 'boom interest' collectors.
Sorry, but successful magazine publishing is a hard, cold, calculating, competitive, commercial and highly professional world. It always has been, and it always will be.
The one saving grace for people like us is the internet which helped to kill magazine features on camera collecting. Troll round and you'll find more information on classic cameras - and repairing them - much of it accurate, than ever appeared in magazines.
And it's all free (once you pay your internet subscription), written and produced by fellow collectors who devote a great deal of time, and often quite a lot of money, to share information with fellow collectors.
Forget magazines unless you're into digital. When it comes to information, collectors of film cameras have never had it so good!
OK, Lesson finished, mes enfants. You can all go out and play with your classic cameras.
PeterW
|
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Dec 10, 2007 18:27:17 GMT -5
I have to admit I like the instant access to information (accurate and otherwise) that the internet offers. Particularly now that digital camera models change almost weekly.
On a related topic, I knew the world would eventually go digital but didn't realize how fast that was happening until we went to Europe this year. There were three types of tourists: Those using video cameras, those shooting digital stills and those using "throwaway" film cameras. Of the thousands of people I saw carrying cameras I don't think there were more that a dozen carrying quality 35mm film cameras. The guy who runs the local Walgreens photo center tells me virtually all the film they process now comes from throwaway cameras. Plus, now they have the machine where you caqn plug in the memory card from your digital camera, select the size and phots you want and they automatically will be printed. Eliminating the need for a home computer to do digital photos pretty much eliminates film's last selling point (for the average consumer).
|
|
