Beginner Magazines

viewfromthenorth said:
I should have @ you to ask, I kind of got lost in the posts somewhat! I’ve followed them on Instagram for a while and I think I might go with the newsletter at first as the subscription is very expensive. I did subscribe to a very good publication a while back who went bust and I never got my years subscription money back. Then they restarted and wouldn’t honour the subscription, tossers. Shame as it was a very good mag, can’t recall what it was called now though.
Click to expand...
I suspect that paper based magazines are all slightly risky long term, as it's probably a niche market., but it's annoying to lose your sub that way.
 
droj said:
I love print as a medium - it has that tactility that a screen can never have. You've got the texture of the paper, the layout, the typography, the binding (though really that's more to do with books) ...

With magazines, the content can often be 'bitty', which can be unsatisfying and a bit like being cheated. But it's a broad church and some are more satisfying than others. One I still miss was Ag under the helm of the late Chris Dickie.
Click to expand...
I still think of a "photograph" as being an object, Something physical and real (prints or books), that provides a very different experience to looking at photographs on a computer screen.
 
For those who want to go mad trying to sift through "photography" magazines.

Magellaria, a specialist magazine shop in Bath, has twelve pages of magazines listed from a search on photography. Hotshoe, The Bj and "Source" (not "The" Source as I called it earlier) are listed, as well as many others, that are less dedicated to photography.

store.magalleria.co.uk

Search: 266 results found for "photography*"

At Magalleria we’ve stashed away one of the largest collections of fine, independent magazines you’ll find anywhere. Explore our collections here.
store.magalleria.co.uk store.magalleria.co.uk
 
jerry12953 said:
That looks interesting........... :)
Click to expand...
It is, and I enjoy reading it, but, I think you need to get used to the breadth of what it covers, i.e some very good "photography" to some that is possibly less good photographs, but still important social documents. So still actually "good" photography within the context of how it's being used .At least I think that is the best way of explaining it.

I was a bit disappointed with the first issue, but I thinking I was expecting something that it was never meant to be. ie a version of Studies in Photography that focused on Nature.

The editor (who might actually be co-editor) was the Chief Curator of Photography at the National Galleries of Scotland, who I seem to remember described herself as a Social Historian. She is known for her extensive studies of Hill and Adamson's, who are arguably the first documentary photographers in the world.

I have a few of her books, including one (maybe two) on Hill and Adamson, and a bit of a tome, she co-authored, "Scottish Photography: the first 30 years"
 
Thanks for that Graham. I think that gives me a fair idea of both the scope and the "slant" of the magazine - it makes me think of this book

books.google.co.uk

A Staggering Revolution

During the 1930s, the world of photography was unsettled, exciting, and boisterous. John Raeburn's A Staggering Revolution recreates the energy of the era by surveying photography's rich variety of innovation, exploring the aesthetic and cultural achievements of its leading figures, and mapping...
books.google.co.uk
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Thanks for that Graham. I think that gives me a fair idea of both the scope and the "slant" of the magazine - it makes me think of this book

books.google.co.uk

A Staggering Revolution

During the 1930s, the world of photography was unsettled, exciting, and boisterous. John Raeburn's A Staggering Revolution recreates the energy of the era by surveying photography's rich variety of innovation, exploring the aesthetic and cultural achievements of its leading figures, and mapping...
books.google.co.uk
Click to expand...
That looks an interesting book. But there are too many interesting book !!
 
myotis said:
It is, and I enjoy reading it, but, I think you need to get used to the breadth of what it covers, i.e some very good "photography" to some that is possibly less good photographs, but still important social documents. So still actually "good" photography within the context of how it's being used .At least I think that is the best way of explaining it.

I was a bit disappointed with the first issue, but I thinking I was expecting something that it was never meant to be. ie a version of Studies in Photography that focused on Nature.

The editor (who might actually be co-editor) was the Chief Curator of Photography at the National Galleries of Scotland, who I seem to remember described herself as a Social Historian. She is known for her extensive studies of Hill and Adamson's, who are arguably the first documentary photographers in the world.

I have a few of her books, including one (maybe two) on Hill and Adamson, and a bit of a tome, she co-authored, "Scottish Photography: the first 30 years"
Click to expand...

I see Patricia Macdonald is involved. She and her husband (the pilot) did a book of aerial photography many years ago which showed how landforms viewed from above could create abstract patterns - and this was long before aerial photography became a thing.
 
jerry12953 said:
I see Patricia Macdonald is involved. She and her husband (the pilot) did a book of aerial photography many years ago which showed how landforms viewed from above could create abstract patterns - and this was long before aerial photography became a thing.
Click to expand...
I think she contributed an article. I'm not at home or I would have a look.
 
myotis said:
I think she contributed an article. I'm not at home or I would have a look.
Click to expand...

See this page.

https://studiesinphotography.com/pr...79850&pr_ref_pid=6658928672906&pr_seq=uniform

The original image appears in the book "Scotland from Above" by the Macdonalds. To be fair, it is the best image in the book by a long way (IMO), but the whole thing shows the potential for aerial photography to produce some interesting images. If drones had been available 35 years ago I might have been tempted to try to emulate her work, but hey ho.

I'm tempted to take a punt on "Leaves", though. Thanks for mentioning it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top