Re: [Leica] Girlie Guy: answering Irving

["SonC \(Sonny Carter\)" <sonc@sonc.com>]

Irving Greines wrote:
> This thread has prompted me to reflect on the imagery that has
appeared in
> Shutterbug over the years.
>
> In my view, the quality of the photography generally appearing in
Shutterbug
> is woefully inadequate.  For the most part, again it's solely my
opinion,
> the photography has an amateurish quality unworthy of publication.
Often,
> the models look like "kiddie porn" rejects, photographed without an
iota of
> glamour, sitting in unimaginative poses with sterile backgrounds.
The
> wedding photography is trite and boring.  The quality of
reproduction is
> poor.
>
> The magazine used to be viewed as a great source for acquiring used
> equipment.  However, now that the Internet has emerged as a
significant
> selling force, the size of Shutterbug's classifieds has steadily
> diminished. Its dealer display ads also seem to be diminishing.


Dear Irving,
    It is pretty clear that you have not read Shutterbug in a long
time.   I looked in this month's issue, and found 22 dealers
advertising Leica, more than half of them offering used cameras,
lenses and equipment.  To my knowledge, no other magazine has this
amount.  Tamrkin has for many months held the anchor spot in the first
two pages, and B&H still has pages and pages of ads, leading with
their Leica.

True, Ebay and dealer's websites have supplanted the classifieds of
Sbug, but that does not seem to affect the magazine's thickness, and
it remains a nice big, easy to read magazine.  Shutterbug is now
printed on higher quality paper with loads more color.

In addition, they have a monthly events listing, workshops listings,
Help column (not flippant, like Pop's) a digi-help column, Photoshop
tutorials, special sections of Lab and Repair companies.

In this issue, I did not see anything remotely resembling "Kiddie
Porn," subjects, but you may be better able to identify it than I am.
The kids were all with families.  There were a couple of model shots,
one in front of the Eiffel tower.   No wedding shots in this issue,
when they are, usually Monte Zucker has a hand in them.  There were
some misty environmentals; not my cup of tea, but they do sell.

The magazine usually has articles by people like Peter Burian, David
Brooks, Francis Schultz, Roger Hicks, Bob Shell (whose illustrations
this month were landscapes,) and as I mentioned above, Monte Zucker,
and I know I am leaving some out.

I suggest that before you blast a magazine on an International forum,
(I know it was just your opinion, but you still denigrated them,) you
look at the magazine in a current form.

Speaking of photographic quality, I don't recall ever seeing any of
your stuff.  I know you live in L.A. and I know you are a Leica M
user, but I only know that because of one prior posting.

Regards,

Sonny
http://www.sonc.com








- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html