Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photography and the Law - Useful UK Article

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:57:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Since this subject has been raised in various newsgroups several times
recently, I thought it would be worth drawing attention to a very useful
and quite comprehensive 3-page article in the August/September issue of
F2 Freelance and Digital magazine.

This UK magazine is not commonly found on newsagents shelves, but (I
think) may be subscription only. I find it an excellent magazine (apart
from the title) covering a good mix of things (film, digital, freelance
work, generally the best end of amateur work and the part-time/freelance
stuff) which suits me well. YMMV. It is edited by David Kilpatrick, who
occasionally makes very cogent contributions here. Contact

http://www.iconpublications.com

I have no connection, other than as a satisfied subscriber.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:00:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Littlewood wrote:

> Since this subject has been raised in various newsgroups several times
> recently, I thought it would be worth drawing attention to a very useful
> and quite comprehensive 3-page article in the August/September issue of
> F2 Freelance and Digital magazine.
>
> This UK magazine is not commonly found on newsagents shelves, but (I
> think) may be subscription only. I find it an excellent magazine (apart
> from the title) covering a good mix of things (film, digital, freelance
> work, generally the best end of amateur work and the part-time/freelance
> stuff) which suits me well. YMMV. It is edited by David Kilpatrick, who
> occasionally makes very cogent contributions here. Contact
>
> http://www.iconpublications.com
>
> I have no connection, other than as a satisfied subscriber.
>

Thanks for the heads up - the article was in fact sourced from internet
newsgroups originally, as its author made a PDF available freely. I
approach her (Linda Macpherson, a law lecturer in Edinburgh) and she
equally freely permitted reworking the rather densely packed PDF into an
article, and updated sections at my request (specifically, those dealing
with photographing children). Paul Cooper, a well-known UK commercial
stock shooter, made a title page photo for me at a very modest fixed fee
on the basis of placing the photo on Alamy as RF after I had used it,
and I have been able to reproduce this excellent article in both our
MASTER PHOTO DIGITAL (professional association) magazine and in f2.

All our magazines including the UK Konica Minolta PHOTOWORLD mag are
subcription only, and it is no easy task to sell physical paper
magazines today. The title of f2 was a change made last year to our
earlier FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHER magazine because the ad agencies said
that unless the title included the word DIGITAL we would be unlikely to
see any more advertising; most UK photo importers now ask their agencies
only to advertise in digital photography titles. Hence the name changes
on our two magazines for the pro/am-pro markets.

I find whatever contribution I may make to NGs is far exceeded by the
value of the input and feedback received, by the breadth of knowledge
(some unprintable without breaking embargoes) and in the featured
photographers I am able to find via forums/NGs.

David
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:26:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <det55l$ahu$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, David
Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> writes
>
>
>All our magazines including the UK Konica Minolta PHOTOWORLD mag are
>subcription only, and it is no easy task to sell physical paper
>magazines today. The title of f2 was a change made last year to our
>earlier FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHER magazine because the ad agencies said
>that unless the title included the word DIGITAL we would be unlikely to
>see any more advertising; most UK photo importers now ask their
>agencies only to advertise in digital photography titles. Hence the
>name changes on our two magazines for the pro/am-pro markets.
>
Sorry for the dig, I was just being playful. What you say sounds sad but
all to credible.

David
--
David Littlewood
Related resources
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On 2005-08-28, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
> David Littlewood wrote:
>
>> Since this subject has been raised in various newsgroups several times
>> recently, I thought it would be worth drawing attention to a very useful
>> and quite comprehensive 3-page article in the August/September issue of
>> F2 Freelance and Digital magazine.
>
[snip]

> Thanks for the heads up - the article was in fact sourced from internet
> newsgroups originally, as its author made a PDF available freely.

Here's a link to what I think was the original article:
www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

Sorry, David, don't mean to disuade people from subscribing to your
magazine. However, there are probably many who would be interested in
the content but not the subscription fee.

Please note, David has said that the information has been updated in a
couple of places so, if the contents of the .pdf are likely to apply to
you it may be wise to investigate further and treat the .pdf as
suggestion, not law.


Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:02:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Justin C wrote:

> On 2005-08-28, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>David Littlewood wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Since this subject has been raised in various newsgroups several times
>>>recently, I thought it would be worth drawing attention to a very useful
>>>and quite comprehensive 3-page article in the August/September issue of
>>>F2 Freelance and Digital magazine.
>>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Thanks for the heads up - the article was in fact sourced from internet
>>newsgroups originally, as its author made a PDF available freely.
>
>
> Here's a link to what I think was the original article:
> www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
>
> Sorry, David, don't mean to disuade people from subscribing to your
> magazine. However, there are probably many who would be interested in
> the content but not the subscription fee.
>

We do provide a large number of articles in pdf form on the
www.iconpublications.com website, including some from the very latest
editions in their full form, freely downloadable. If they turn out to be
password protected in any way, it is 'hypo' or 'hypo1'.

Right now we are working on a change to the website which will make it
possible to put all the magazine content up as pdf downloads, accessible
for small subscription fee on-line with no printed edition. If and when
this goes ahead, the entire back issue content should be converted and
available. If it proves successful, additional material not appearing in
printed editions will be added.

Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars, panels,
little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long rambling
narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and large
pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the industry
says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short attention
spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest... :-)

David

--
www.iconpublications.com www.troubadour.uk.com
www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium
Original recordings: www.soundclick.com/davidkilpatrick
Photographs: www.alamy.com
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:10:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:13:53 -0000, Justin C
<justin.0507@purestblue.com> wrote:

>On 2005-08-28, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>> David Littlewood wrote:
>>
>>> Since this subject has been raised in various newsgroups several times
>>> recently, I thought it would be worth drawing attention to a very useful
>>> and quite comprehensive 3-page article in the August/September issue of
>>> F2 Freelance and Digital magazine.
>>
>[snip]
>
>> Thanks for the heads up - the article was in fact sourced from internet
>> newsgroups originally, as its author made a PDF available freely.
>
>Here's a link to what I think was the original article:
> www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
>
>Sorry, David, don't mean to disuade people from subscribing to your
>magazine. However, there are probably many who would be interested in
>the content but not the subscription fee.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:11:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:13:53 -0000, Justin C
<justin.0507@purestblue.com> wrote:

>On 2005-08-28, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>> David Littlewood wrote:
>>
>>> Since this subject has been raised in various newsgroups several times
>>> recently, I thought it would be worth drawing attention to a very useful
>>> and quite comprehensive 3-page article in the August/September issue of
>>> F2 Freelance and Digital magazine.
>>
>[snip]
>
>> Thanks for the heads up - the article was in fact sourced from internet
>> newsgroups originally, as its author made a PDF available freely.
>
>Here's a link to what I think was the original article:
> www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
>
>Sorry, David, don't mean to disuade people from subscribing to your
>magazine. However, there are probably many who would be interested in
>the content but not the subscription fee.

It was available on the site without subscription.

>
>Please note, David has said that the information has been updated in a
>couple of places so, if the contents of the .pdf are likely to apply to
>you it may be wise to investigate further and treat the .pdf as
>suggestion, not law.


You're simply repeating information contained in the last
paragraph.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 4:42:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
>given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
>Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars, panels,
>little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long rambling
>narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and large
>pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the industry
>says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short attention
>spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest... :-)


There is nothing wrong with the Dorling Kindersley approach - it gets
people reading. All the excellent information in your long narratives
is completely worthless if you cannot get people to read it.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 6:25:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
>>given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
>>Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars, panels,
>>little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long rambling
>>narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and large
>>pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the industry
>>says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short attention
>>spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest... :-)
>
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with the Dorling Kindersley approach - it gets
> people reading. All the excellent information in your long narratives
> is completely worthless if you cannot get people to read it.
>
>

True, Tony, but having worked for the Dorling Kindersley machine (the
darkroom section of John Hedgecoe's original 1970s Book of Photography
was mine) and then for the partwork biz which followed (You and Your
Camera and The Photo) I know that the restrictions of explaining every
step in (shall we say) 5 lines of 50 characters each and forcing all
processes into a set of three, six or twelve boxes/pix - and so on -
does real damage to content.

I see better written, longer articles in womens' market TV soap celeb
magazines, compared to some consumer technology and photo mags. My
experience is that most buyers of mags complain about lack of reading
matter, and 'only takes half an hour'.

There is a compromise and I like the general approach taken by Digital
Photography, and Practical's latest makeover seems to have removed the
excesses of graphic box/sidebar/pullquote/table/blob design-run editorial.

Photography lacks an equivalent of Sound on Sound magazine, which is
happy to print a 4500 word feature if 4500 words are needed. It's also
amazingly successful for a private venture. If I was 20 years younger I
might look at that and think 'I can do the same with digital
photography' but I'm no longer especially interested in big money -
either making it or LOSING it...

David
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 9:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In message <devt5e$3dh$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:


> Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
> given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
> Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars, panels,
> little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long rambling
> narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and large
> pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the industry
> says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short attention
> spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest... :-)

[OT]
But here's the double whammy:
I teach in a school which, although we have some excellent pupils
every year, is definitely pear-shaped in the academic department.

I'd imagined at first that the small chunks with sidebars,
pull-quotes, etc., etc. was trying to cater to the 'lower-ability'
reader: and have noticed that a lot of the publications which we get
to give out to pupils are written in this style. Suprisingly, the able
pupils (who would be able to cope with the traditional 'wordy'
approach) like and can cope well with the more modern layout: the
poorer-ability pupils are totally lost, as they don't know where to
look and get confused.

Of course, they are totally turned off by the 'wordy' approach, and
probably can only cope with the narrative beginning-to-end in photos
or, preferably, cartoons.

Slainte

Liz

--
Virtual Liz: http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
Photo blog of Make Povery History rally in Edinburgh 2 July 2005:
http://www.v-liz.com/g8rally/protest.htm
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 9:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Liz wrote:
> In message <devt5e$3dh$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
> David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
>> given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
>> Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars,
>> panels, little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long
>> rambling narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and
>> large pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the
>> industry says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short
>> attention spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest...
>> :-)
>
> [OT]
> But here's the double whammy:

How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double whammy"?

Without Google.


--
Frank ess
August 30, 2005 10:37:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick wrote:

> True, Tony, but having worked for the Dorling Kindersley machine (the
> darkroom section of John Hedgecoe's original 1970s Book of Photography
> was mine) and then for the partwork biz which followed (You and Your
> Camera and The Photo) I know that the restrictions of explaining every
> step in (shall we say) 5 lines of 50 characters each and forcing all
> processes into a set of three, six or twelve boxes/pix - and so on -
> does real damage to content.

Oi, mush! We didn't use boxes *that* much on The Photo (an ex-Marshall
Cavendish sub writes) - in fact, we used to run quite long articles. But
I'd agree with your general premise. The move to boxout-mania to entice
those afraid of words has contributed to greater superficiality.

BTW, if memory serves, my very first journalism job was to sub an article of
yours for The Photo - a 2,000-word piece on using wideangle lenses.

Steve Mansfield
--
www.diverse-art.com
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:50:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
>>> given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
>>> Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars,
>>> panels, little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long
>>> rambling narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and
>>> large pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the
>>> industry says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short
>>> attention spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest... :-)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with the Dorling Kindersley approach - it gets
>> people reading. All the excellent information in your long narratives
>> is completely worthless if you cannot get people to read it.
>>
>
> True, Tony, but having worked for the Dorling Kindersley machine (the
> darkroom section of John Hedgecoe's original 1970s Book of Photography
> was mine) and then for the partwork biz which followed (You and Your
> Camera and The Photo) I know that the restrictions of explaining every
> step in (shall we say) 5 lines of 50 characters each and forcing all
> processes into a set of three, six or twelve boxes/pix - and so on -
> does real damage to content.
>
> I see better written, longer articles in womens' market TV soap celeb
> magazines, compared to some consumer technology and photo mags. My
> experience is that most buyers of mags complain about lack of reading
> matter, and 'only takes half an hour'.
>
> There is a compromise and I like the general approach taken by Digital
> Photography, and Practical's latest makeover seems to have removed the
> excesses of graphic box/sidebar/pullquote/table/blob design-run editorial.
>
> Photography lacks an equivalent of Sound on Sound magazine, which is
> happy to print a 4500 word feature if 4500 words are needed. It's also
> amazingly successful for a private venture. If I was 20 years younger I
> might look at that and think 'I can do the same with digital
> photography' but I'm no longer especially interested in big money -
> either making it or LOSING it...

I agree with this. I am quite susceptible to buying magazines, but only
have two (the GMC ones) on subscription now as I find that generally
they are all of this DK style which I find too superficial. You can
'read' an issue of many photo. mags in a short space of time and end up
feeling like you've wasted your time. There's no 'meat' there.
I'd like to think that there's scope for both approaches (entry-level,
boxes, sidebars, etc. and a more 'learned' style), as there used to be,
but perhaps there isn't anymore? Sad, but we're often told that society
is all 'instant gratification' these days.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:39:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Thus spake Frank ess unto the assembled multitudes:

> How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double whammy"?
> Without Google.

Wasn't it the UK Conservative Party - or perhaps one of the Saatchi clan?




--
Andy Clews University of Sussex IT Services
(Remove DENTURES if replying by email)
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:41:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:

> David Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>
>>True, Tony, but having worked for the Dorling Kindersley machine (the
>>darkroom section of John Hedgecoe's original 1970s Book of Photography
>>was mine) and then for the partwork biz which followed (You and Your
>>Camera and The Photo) I know that the restrictions of explaining every
>>step in (shall we say) 5 lines of 50 characters each and forcing all
>>processes into a set of three, six or twelve boxes/pix - and so on -
>>does real damage to content.
>
>
> Oi, mush! We didn't use boxes *that* much on The Photo (an ex-Marshall
> Cavendish sub writes) - in fact, we used to run quite long articles. But
> I'd agree with your general premise. The move to boxout-mania to entice
> those afraid of words has contributed to greater superficiality.
>
> BTW, if memory serves, my very first journalism job was to sub an article of
> yours for The Photo - a 2,000-word piece on using wideangle lenses.
>


OK, The Photo was not quite as compartmented as Y & YC, and I am
thinking of the step-by-steps more than anything - there always had to
be a set number of steps no matter what the subject!

The Photo was less commercial too. Eaglemoss were still paying me fees
for spin-offs five years ago, twenty years after the original photos
were published. It's dried up now, finally, but they kept reeling out
reworks and revisions and stuff for two decades. I suspect maybe
Marshall Cavendish only bought words from me - this was the publication
where I stopped supplying images because of the complaint:

'Yours pictures have too much green in them...'

Yes, I lived in the countryside, and my pictures generally showed that.
The London picture editor couldn't stomach so many trees, fills, fields
and things like that and wanted more concrete!

Actually, what they wanted was a more international flavour, and the
reason for my pictures not being acceptable was that they didn't work
well outside the UK. Not just more urban, but more variety of landscape,
was needed; desert, prairie, alpine, arctic, the lot. And more variety
of people, and architectural styles. They had to source images from all
over the world in order to create a publication which could be sold on
to the world market.

Now of course if it had been run by EMAP, a boxful of shots of Bamburgh
Castle, that Cornish beach with big stones, a couple of waterfalls -
well, I'd have been made...

David
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:47:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

John Fryatt wrote:


> I agree with this. I am quite susceptible to buying magazines, but only
> have two (the GMC ones) on subscription now as I find that generally
> they are all of this DK style which I find too superficial. You can
> 'read' an issue of many photo. mags in a short space of time and end up
> feeling like you've wasted your time. There's no 'meat' there.
> I'd like to think that there's scope for both approaches (entry-level,
> boxes, sidebars, etc. and a more 'learned' style), as there used to be,
> but perhaps there isn't anymore? Sad, but we're often told that society
> is all 'instant gratification' these days.


GMC is the best hope you have. Keith Wilson and Ailsa McWhinnie both
come from the same direction as I do editorially/designwise, and they
have a VERY good company behind them. Outdoor Photography and Black and
White Photography are in a class of their own on the news-stands.

I recently received two books from GMC and their associate PIP
(Photographers Institute Press), both on the KM Dynax 7D camera. The
American imported book was little more than a manual reprinted, black
and white all through, irrelevant pictures badly captioned in the wrong
place, peppered with errors. Their own PIP guide by Chris Weston (an
excellent UK photo tech writer) was exactly the same price, full of
colour, far better produced and a decent user book going beyond the
manual in every way. They just happen also to be the importers for the
American object. Their own production standards are far higher.

David
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:31:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Andy Clews" <A.Clews@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:D f2n6v$c47$3@south.jnrs.ja.net...
> Thus spake Frank ess unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>> How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double whammy"?
>> Without Google.
>
> Wasn't it the UK Conservative Party - or perhaps one of the Saatchi clan?

Judge Dredd Voice activated gun. Double whammy was the highest output of
the gun.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:58:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

>True, Tony, but having worked for the Dorling Kindersley machine (the
>darkroom section of John Hedgecoe's original 1970s Book of Photography
>was mine) and then for the partwork biz which followed (You and Your
>Camera and The Photo) I know that the restrictions of explaining every
>step in (shall we say) 5 lines of 50 characters each and forcing all
>processes into a set of three, six or twelve boxes/pix - and so on -
>does real damage to content.


You seem to have missed the point here.

Lots of people read Dorling Kindersley books, and enjoy them. Their
style invites people to read them. The content may be compromised -
in your eyes - but it is far better to get people reading something
than nothing. Many people are put off by long narratives to the point
where they either don't buy the book, or buy it and don't read it. No
matter how good the content, it is wasted if people don't read it.

This isn't because they are thick, it is just that most people no
longer have the time (and the peace and quiet) to digest long, complex
narratives. That's why there is a demand for books that explain
things in a way that people find easier to understand, given the many
competing demands on their time.

It takes a gifted person to write books in this style without losing
sight of what the book is about. In my opinion, Dorling Kindersley
deserve high praise for maintaining a very high standard of content
while making their books immensely readable and enjoyable.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:


>
> It takes a gifted person to write books in this style without losing
> sight of what the book is about. In my opinion, Dorling Kindersley
> deserve high praise for maintaining a very high standard of content
> while making their books immensely readable and enjoyable.
>
>

AVA Publishing are the current best at this. There is a particularly
good - really, really good - book by Jeremy Webb about to appear. Watch
out for it. It's the best photo book I have received in a long time. It
is called 'Creative Vision, £24.95, ISBN 2-88479-072-1 and it goes on
sale tomorrow.

This book does use the boxed copy/spread/extended caption style, but the
text is printed in tiny 8pt and the pages are biggish, which means
several hundred words can be used in place of just a few, for each
example. Webb himself is an exceptionally good photographer and uses
work from several dozen others. It's intelligent, visually surprising,
technically sound, and well designed and printed.

I believe it is also Jeremy Webb's first book. No commercial interest. I
just happen to be impressed by this in comparison with (for example) the
RotoVision pot-boilers where a fair to moderate hack writes a para about
a different photo example per spread - same basic formula, but in this
case, an extremely perceptive and thoughtful writer deals with just
about the whole visual idiom.

David
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 7:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <df4d7j$2e7$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, David
Kilpatrick wrote:
> It
> is called 'Creative Vision, £24.95, ISBN 2-88479-072-1 and it goes on
> sale tomorrow.

When they get some, Amazon UK will sell it to you for £20.19 -
http://tinyurl.com/bw9mg .

--

Roger
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 7:25:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <df4d7j$2e7$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Tony Polson wrote:

> > It takes a gifted person to write books in this style without losing
> > sight of what the book is about. In my opinion, Dorling Kindersley
> > deserve high praise for maintaining a very high standard of content
> > while making their books immensely readable and enjoyable.

> AVA Publishing are the current best at this. There is a particularly
> good - really, really good - book by Jeremy Webb about to appear. Watch
> out for it. It's the best photo book I have received in a long time. It
> is called 'Creative Vision, £24.95, ISBN 2-88479-072-1 and it goes on
> sale tomorrow.

> This book does use the boxed copy/spread/extended caption style, but the
> text is printed in tiny 8pt and the pages are biggish, which means
> several hundred words can be used in place of just a few, for each
> example. Webb himself is an exceptionally good photographer and uses
> work from several dozen others. It's intelligent, visually surprising,
> technically sound, and well designed and printed.

Success in this style depends on content, audience - and brilliance! I've
wasted much time in trying to transfer basic text with graphics (for
computers) to boxed step-by-step style and, not only is it very hard work, but
you frequently end up with very little said after 4 or 5 pages. It may be OK
for *very* basic stuff where that very little is all that is said - or where
you know *all* the audience knows all the basics and just wants the extra bits
illustrated. Attempting it under other circumstances is doomed to fail ...

... but I'm willing to learn from anyone who knows otherwise. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 8:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

ian lincoln <jessops@sux.com> wrote:

> "Andy Clews" <A.Clews@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:D f2n6v$c47$3@south.jnrs.ja.net...
> > Thus spake Frank ess unto the assembled multitudes:
> >
> >> How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double whammy"?
> >> Without Google.
> >
> > Wasn't it the UK Conservative Party - or perhaps one of the Saatchi clan?
>
> Judge Dredd Voice activated gun. Double whammy was the highest output of
> the gun.

Only in the awful Judge Dredd movie.

The use of "double whammy" in UK politics predates the movie.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 11:05:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:28:13 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote,
>How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double whammy"?

Al Capp

>Without Google.

Yes.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 11:05:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Harmon wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:28:13 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, "Frank ess"
> <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote,
>> How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double
>> whammy"?
>
> Al Capp
>
>> Without Google.
>
> Yes.

Bingo! In about 1950 or '51 IIRC.

http://deniskitchen.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CT...

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 12:08:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Are you sure it wasn't his brother Andy? 8-)

--

Roger
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In message <df4d7j$2e7$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

['Creative Vision,]
>
> This book does use the boxed copy/spread/extended caption style, but the
> text is printed in tiny 8pt and the pages are biggish,

.... and for those of us with less than 20/20 vision, creative or
otherwise???

Slainte

Liz


--
Virtual Liz: http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
Photo blog of Make Povery History rally in Edinburgh 2 July 2005:
http://www.v-liz.com/g8rally/protest.htm
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:41:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Liz wrote:

> In message <df4d7j$2e7$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
> David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
> ['Creative Vision,]
>
>>This book does use the boxed copy/spread/extended caption style, but the
>>text is printed in tiny 8pt and the pages are biggish,
>
>
> ... and for those of us with less than 20/20 vision, creative or
> otherwise???
>

Yes, that's a valid criticism. It's set on a decent body depth so
there's no crowding, but the captions must be in 6 point - amazingly small.

David
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:13:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

>AVA Publishing are the current best at this. There is a particularly
>good - really, really good - book by Jeremy Webb about to appear. Watch
>out for it. It's the best photo book I have received in a long time. It
>is called 'Creative Vision, £24.95, ISBN 2-88479-072-1 and it goes on
>sale tomorrow.
>
>This book does use the boxed copy/spread/extended caption style, but the
>text is printed in tiny 8pt and the pages are biggish, which means
>several hundred words can be used in place of just a few, for each
>example. Webb himself is an exceptionally good photographer and uses
>work from several dozen others. It's intelligent, visually surprising,
>technically sound, and well designed and printed.
>
>I believe it is also Jeremy Webb's first book. No commercial interest. I
>just happen to be impressed by this in comparison with (for example) the
>RotoVision pot-boilers where a fair to moderate hack writes a para about
>a different photo example per spread - same basic formula, but in this
>case, an extremely perceptive and thoughtful writer deals with just
>about the whole visual idiom.


Thanks for the recommendation. I might just give it a try, as the
photo book budget remains unspent so far this year.

;-)
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 10:57:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:31:02 GMT, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com>
wrote:

>
>"Andy Clews" <A.Clews@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:D f2n6v$c47$3@south.jnrs.ja.net...
>> Thus spake Frank ess unto the assembled multitudes:
>>
>>> How many can name the popularizer of the expression "double whammy"?
>>> Without Google.
>>
>> Wasn't it the UK Conservative Party - or perhaps one of the Saatchi clan?
>
>Judge Dredd Voice activated gun. Double whammy was the highest output of
>the gun.
>

Too late by at least twenty years.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 10:54:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <devt5e$3dh$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, David
Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> writes
>
>We do provide a large number of articles in pdf form on the
>www.iconpublications.com website, including some from the very latest
>editions in their full form, freely downloadable. If they turn out to
>be password protected in any way, it is 'hypo' or 'hypo1'.
>
>Right now we are working on a change to the website which will make it
>possible to put all the magazine content up as pdf downloads,
>accessible for small subscription fee on-line with no printed edition.
>If and when this goes ahead, the entire back issue content should be
>converted and available. If it proves successful, additional material
>not appearing in printed editions will be added.
>
>Although I love producing printed magazines, they are barely viable
>given my approach to content - the exact reverse of the Dorling
>Kindersley type 'easily digested chunks' with lots of sidebars, panels,
>little topics, tables and small pictures. I go for long rambling
>narrative texts with as many useful asides as possible and large
>pictures well presented in a plain fashion! Exactly what the industry
>says 'will not sell' to today's readers with their short attention
>spans, limited vocabulary and lack of real interest... :-)
>

Which is, of course, why I like it....

I'm sure you are right, and that producing magazines for a minority of
literate and technically savvy readers must be a hard act to achieve
(and stay solvent). Unfortunately, IMO, a web-based subscription service
would be a poor substitute. It may be a generation thing, but I still
find printed material far more satisfactory than a computer screen. I
must try the website though, to get into practice.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:02:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

> Here's a link to what I think was the original article:
> www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

I recently got that link from uk.rec.subterranea - Will be very useful.

--
Paul

- Mansfield Goths and Alternatives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mansfieldgoths
- Mansfield Chavs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mansfieldchavs
- The Alternative Guide to Mansfield:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alternativemansfield

- Get a taste of my life at: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ppotter
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:44:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Which is, of course, why I like it....
>
> I'm sure you are right, and that producing magazines for a minority of
> literate and technically savvy readers must be a hard act to achieve
> (and stay solvent). Unfortunately, IMO, a web-based subscription service
> would be a poor substitute. It may be a generation thing, but I still
> find printed material far more satisfactory than a computer screen. I
> must try the website though, to get into practice.

PDF is quite easily capable of multiple resolution support (at the cost
of a larger download for everybody) which woul dlet you print it out
with little if any losses?

>
> David

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:25:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm sure you are right, and that producing magazines for a minority of
>literate and technically savvy readers must be a hard act to achieve


Ooh! Spot the snobbery ... so sharp that it hurts! Ouch!

The truth is that there are a great many literate and technically
savvy readers who simply don't have the time to wade through pages of
turgid prose that is aimed at people of a certain generation with time
on their hands. They want to read something that basically cuts to
the quick, but also has options for more detailed reading.

The Dorling Kindersley style achieves that. Of course it needs
writers who are more articulate, and who possess the (rare) ability to
explain complex ideas in simple terms. I have no doubt that these
gifted writers would find it much easier to write an old-fashioned
long-winded narrative with every possible detail (whether needed or
not) buried deep in pages and pages of traditionally crafted prose.

There is indeed a generation to whom the long-winded prose appeals,
but it isn't the generation that is buying new equipment and is keen
to learn. It is the generation that will soon be dead, and that
explains why the market for this style of publication is inexorably
diminishing towards zero.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 8:24:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

> Ooh! Spot the snobbery ... so sharp that it hurts! Ouch!
>
> The truth is that there are a great many literate and technically
> savvy readers who simply don't have the time to wade through pages of
> turgid prose...

And spot the /reductio ad absurdum/ and the use of derogatory adjectives.

Just because writing isn't highly compressed does not necessarily make it
turgid or long-winded. Some readers, whatever their literacy level,
technical standard or age, simply prefer writing that doesn't rush through
a topic.

The American magazine, _Popular Photography and Imaging_, for instance,
runs plenty of lengthy articles and it is one of the most widely-read
photography periodicals in the world.

--

Roger
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 2:16:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <6c6fh15dkm8uo7krck80kap6p66nrflo8n@4ax.com>, Tony Polson
<tp@nospam.co.uk> writes
>David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure you are right, and that producing magazines for a minority of
>>literate and technically savvy readers must be a hard act to achieve
>
>
>Ooh! Spot the snobbery ... so sharp that it hurts! Ouch!

I find it amusing that you accuse me of snobbery, but apparently agree
with every word in my statement...
>
>The truth is that there are a great many literate and technically
>savvy readers who simply don't have the time to wade through pages of
>turgid prose that is aimed at people of a certain generation with time
>on their hands. They want to read something that basically cuts to
>the quick, but also has options for more detailed reading.
>
Whatever floats your boat, Tony. Some people want to have their
information pre-digested, never question what is given to them, and
accept the received opinions. Others - and there are some in every
generation, fortunately - wish to acquire a thorough understanding of
what is going on, demand logical explanations, and are prepared to
challenge received opinion if it does not convince them. Neither is
necessarily better than the other - the hard-working skip-reader may be
very clever, and the curmudgeonly challenger may be as thick as pigshit
- they are just different (though, let it be said, the advances in human
knowledge rarely come from the first type). Long may it continue, say I.

>The Dorling Kindersley style achieves that. Of course it needs
>writers who are more articulate, and who possess the (rare) ability to
>explain complex ideas in simple terms. I have no doubt that these
>gifted writers would find it much easier to write an old-fashioned
>long-winded narrative with every possible detail (whether needed or
>not) buried deep in pages and pages of traditionally crafted prose.

I think you are guilty of prejudice (literally) in your description. "DK
is splendid stuff, the other is long-winded narrative." I remember the
same technique being used by student claques to rubbish their enemies,
and didn't fall for it then. Obviously a well written, clear explanation
beats long winded, incomprehensible, turgid prose. This is hardly the
issue: that is, whether a deep explanation is more desirable than a
superficial one. I am familiar with the DK style, and very good it is
for children. It lacks detail for the full story though; "options for
detailed reading" seem all too often, on examination, to be
frustratingly lightweight.
>
>There is indeed a generation to whom the long-winded prose appeals,
>but it isn't the generation that is buying new equipment and is keen
>to learn. It is the generation that will soon be dead, and that
>explains why the market for this style of publication is inexorably
>diminishing towards zero.
>
You may be right. Regrettably, if you are, then the future generations
are doomed to carry on making the same mistakes as the past, probably in
greater numbers. Thankfully, digital technology means they will not use
so many resources!

However, I believe there will always be enough enthusiasts who do value
the deeper understanding to support at least some of the more rigorous
material. I do agree that most magazines comprehensively fail to achieve
this. It would be interesting to compare notes on which magazines work
best, in what style.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 2:51:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Roger Whitehead <rogergw@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>The American magazine, _Popular Photography and Imaging_, for instance,
>runs plenty of lengthy articles and it is one of the most widely-read
>photography periodicals in the world.


Pop Photo is the most dumbed down photo magazine I have ever read. It
is aimed firmly at idiots who need to be spoonfed with the most
patronising, slow prose because they haven't the intelligence to
understand a punchy, well-written article. It is probably the worst
example you could quote in support of your point.

An annual subscription (by mail) costs $10 in the USA.

That's about £5.50 for twelve issues. Draw your own conclusions.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 3:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <ir7gh11h4pptl7dvkbarq4mjti3ju7rnt1@4ax.com>, Tony Polson
wrote:
> Pop Photo is the most dumbed down photo magazine I have ever read. It
> is aimed firmly at idiots who need to be spoonfed... [further ranting
(or trolling) snipped]

You seem incapable of debating matters reasonably or unemotionally.
Goodbye.

--

Roger
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 6:26:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ir7gh11h4pptl7dvkbarq4mjti3ju7rnt1@4ax.com...
> Roger Whitehead <rogergw@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>The American magazine, _Popular Photography and Imaging_, for instance,
>>runs plenty of lengthy articles and it is one of the most widely-read
>>photography periodicals in the world.
>
>
> Pop Photo is the most dumbed down photo magazine I have ever read. It
> is aimed firmly at idiots who need to be spoonfed with the most
> patronising, slow prose because they haven't the intelligence to
> understand a punchy, well-written article. It is probably the worst
> example you could quote in support of your point.
>
> An annual subscription (by mail) costs $10 in the USA.
>
> That's about £5.50 for twelve issues. Draw your own conclusions.
>
>
In general these kinds of magazines are little more than vehicles for
advertising. That's why the subscription price is so low. As to the value of
the magazine: That usually depends on the writers they have on their staff.
Sometimes they have some decent articles, but much of the content is usually
pretty bad. A lot of people (me, for example) buy them just to read the
Adorama and B&H ads in the back.....
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 10:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Roger Whitehead <rogergw@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>In article <ir7gh11h4pptl7dvkbarq4mjti3ju7rnt1@4ax.com>, Tony Polson
>wrote:
>> Pop Photo is the most dumbed down photo magazine I have ever read. It
>> is aimed firmly at idiots who need to be spoonfed... [further ranting
>(or trolling) snipped]
>
>You seem incapable of debating matters reasonably or unemotionally.
>Goodbye.


You seem to fit the stereotype of the ntlworld domain.

;-)
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 10:55:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I think you are guilty of prejudice (literally) in your description. "DK
>is splendid stuff, the other is long-winded narrative." I remember the
>same technique being used by student claques to rubbish their enemies,
>and didn't fall for it then.


And you are guilty of presumption. You quoted something I never
implied, let alone wrote, then criticised me for it.

If that isn't the height of arrogance, then I don't know what is.

But the line you take here is all about arrogance, a barely disguised
attempt at intellectual snobbery. You confuse presentation with
content, and imply that anything that is easily readable cannot
possibly be worth reading. Your condescending attitude towards an
internationally renowned and highly successful educational publisher,
whose books are models of clarity, sell to all generations and have
received countless literary awards, tells us all we need to know.

You are a snob, and you use every available opportunity to show it.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 11:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

Your condescending attitude towards an
> internationally renowned and highly successful educational publisher,
> whose books are models of clarity, sell to all generations and have
> received countless literary awards, tells us all we need to know.
>

When I used the Dorling Kindersley reference it wasn't so much in
criticism of their own output - which I worked on for several years
myself, and can vouch for the discipline involved - as the effect they
had on the rest of the publishing industry. Maybe David Littlewood was
simply following the thread and using this publisher as the archetype
for many lesser publishers.

The unstructured (pagewise) book in chapter form or the article which is
written BEFORE the layout is designed have advantages. In the 1960s,
writers like Geoffrey Crawley were never constrained to omit anecdotes
or asides. A great deal of what I learned in photography came from the
discursive nature of photo press writing at the time. It was like
listening to a lecture where the speaker suddenly remembers something
appropriate. That, combined with fewer constraints over style, made
writers like Kevin MacDonnell, Vic Blackman, Ron Spillman, George Hughes
(and many more) identifiable as personalities. They became friends to
the reader, familiar voices.

In the 1980s I was asked to edit some translated books by the Swiss
writer Michael Gnade, and found them unacceptable to British readers for
the extreme to which he took this. Half a chapter could be a description
of how he met a certain old man, and half the technique for the
resulting portrait. I found a few American writers similarly rambling.
At the same time the German and Swiss publishers were creating even more
precise technical primers without a hint of personality.

We had, in Britain, a very fair compromise, but up the to mid-70s and
Dorling Kindersley's first volumes it was often either very dull long
texts or brilliantly simple little pocketbooks - the Arrow and Focal
guides, hardly more than booklets.

Something has been lost because of the success of Dorling Kindersley's
approach, but a huge amount gained, because the London publishing
packagers became the best in the world as a result. But we have not
returned to the point where any OTHER type of book design is fashionable
- we are still in that 1970s groove.

My only argument with popular and standard pro photo magazines is that
graphic design, and potted presentation, take precedence over decent
large pictures. With each successive improvement in digital resolution,
I've always tried to print tes shots which showed first a full page,
then a spread, with maximum enlargement insets if that is not enough.
When the Phase One P45 is available - or a reliable test image is
supplied - I intend to print it A2 as a four-A4 foldout one side of an
entire running sheet, to show what a 39 megapixel image looks like.

I have no doubt at least one mag will print a full page shot of the
camera back and a 2 x 3 inch repro of the image it produces :-) - and
that is actually part of the Dorling Kindersley legacy where very large
clear (entirely copyright owned) studio shots are used and photo
examples (more personal in choice, often subject to usage fees) kept
subordinate. Again, I am not referring to DK themselves, but to the
style they engendered and what has become of it.

David
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 2:55:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:25:44 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.co.uk>
wrote:

>David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure you are right, and that producing magazines for a minority of
>>literate and technically savvy readers must be a hard act to achieve
>
>
>Ooh! Spot the snobbery ... so sharp that it hurts! Ouch!
>
>The truth is that there are a great many literate and technically
>savvy readers who simply don't have the time to wade through pages of
>turgid prose that is aimed at people of a certain generation with time
>on their hands. They want to read something that basically cuts to
>the quick,

Ouch, that hurts. Now if they'd cut to the chase, the thread
would end soon. :-)

>but also has options for more detailed reading.
>
>The Dorling Kindersley style achieves that. Of course it needs
>writers who are more articulate, and who possess the (rare) ability to
>explain complex ideas in simple terms. I have no doubt that these
>gifted writers would find it much easier to write an old-fashioned
>long-winded narrative with every possible detail (whether needed or
>not) buried deep in pages and pages of traditionally crafted prose.
>
>There is indeed a generation to whom the long-winded prose appeals,
>but it isn't the generation that is buying new equipment and is keen
>to learn. It is the generation that will soon be dead, and that
>explains why the market for this style of publication is inexorably
>diminishing towards zero.
>
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 3:09:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ir7gh11h4pptl7dvkbarq4mjti3ju7rnt1@4ax.com...
>> Roger Whitehead <rogergw@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The American magazine, _Popular Photography and Imaging_, for instance,
>>>runs plenty of lengthy articles and it is one of the most widely-read
>>>photography periodicals in the world.
>>
>>
>> Pop Photo is the most dumbed down photo magazine I have ever read. It
>> is aimed firmly at idiots who need to be spoonfed with the most
>> patronising, slow prose because they haven't the intelligence to
>> understand a punchy, well-written article. It is probably the worst
>> example you could quote in support of your point.
>>
>> An annual subscription (by mail) costs $10 in the USA.
>>
>> That's about £5.50 for twelve issues. Draw your own conclusions.
>>
>>
>In general these kinds of magazines are little more than vehicles for
>advertising. That's why the subscription price is so low. As to the value of
>the magazine: That usually depends on the writers they have on their staff.
>Sometimes they have some decent articles, but much of the content is usually
>pretty bad. A lot of people (me, for example) buy them just to read the
>Adorama and B&H ads in the back.....


My point exactly.
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 3:51:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <br3hh1lgk983djrfkn66teh6s1fhajbtda@4ax.com>, Tony Polson
<tp@nospam.co.uk> writes
>David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I think you are guilty of prejudice (literally) in your description. "DK
>>is splendid stuff, the other is long-winded narrative." I remember the
>>same technique being used by student claques to rubbish their enemies,
>>and didn't fall for it then.
>
>
>And you are guilty of presumption. You quoted something I never
>implied, let alone wrote, then criticised me for it.

It was a perfectly accurate paraphrase of what you said. Perhaps you
should read it again.
>
>If that isn't the height of arrogance, then I don't know what is.
>
If I misunderstood what you said, perhaps you need to make your meaning
more clear. No doubt you will find that "arrogant", but I can't say that
worries me.

>But the line you take here is all about arrogance, a barely disguised
>attempt at intellectual snobbery. You confuse presentation with
>content, and imply that anything that is easily readable cannot
>possibly be worth reading. Your condescending attitude towards an
>internationally renowned and highly successful educational publisher,
>whose books are models of clarity, sell to all generations and have
>received countless literary awards, tells us all we need to know.
>
>You are a snob, and you use every available opportunity to show it.
>
>
I'm sorry you should feel it necessary to spoil a potentially useful
discussion on magazine publishing with a personal attack. Sorry, but not
altogether surprised. No point in continuing, really.
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 4:36:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
>Tony Polson wrote:
>Your condescending attitude towards an
>> internationally renowned and highly successful educational publisher,
>> whose books are models of clarity, sell to all generations and have
>> received countless literary awards, tells us all we need to know.
>>
>
>When I used the Dorling Kindersley reference it wasn't so much in
>criticism of their own output - which I worked on for several years
>myself, and can vouch for the discipline involved - as the effect they
>had on the rest of the publishing industry. Maybe David Littlewood was
>simply following the thread and using this publisher as the archetype
>for many lesser publishers.

David L was simply using this thread as an excuse for yet another bout
of a special brand of intellectual snobbery. That's just his way.

>The unstructured (pagewise) book in chapter form or the article which is
> written BEFORE the layout is designed have advantages. In the 1960s,
>writers like Geoffrey Crawley were never constrained to omit anecdotes
>or asides. A great deal of what I learned in photography came from the
>discursive nature of photo press writing at the time. It was like
>listening to a lecture where the speaker suddenly remembers something
>appropriate. That, combined with fewer constraints over style, made
>writers like Kevin MacDonnell, Vic Blackman, Ron Spillman, George Hughes
>(and many more) identifiable as personalities. They became friends to
>the reader, familiar voices.

Victor Blackman was a family friend and he taught me a lot about
photography in a very short time. Whether in person or in print, I
hung on his every word, and I still have (somewhere!) a collection of
press cuttings of his articles.

I am a great admirer of Crawley, Blackman and Spillman and an avid
reader of the first's excellent reviews in AP. Their style suits me
very well indeed. However, I recognise that I am of that "certain
generation" and we are a dying breed.

>In the 1980s I was asked to edit some translated books by the Swiss
>writer Michael Gnade, and found them unacceptable to British readers for
>the extreme to which he took this. Half a chapter could be a description
>of how he met a certain old man, and half the technique for the
>resulting portrait. I found a few American writers similarly rambling.
>At the same time the German and Swiss publishers were creating even more
>precise technical primers without a hint of personality.
>
>We had, in Britain, a very fair compromise, but up the to mid-70s and
>Dorling Kindersley's first volumes it was often either very dull long
>texts or brilliantly simple little pocketbooks - the Arrow and Focal
>guides, hardly more than booklets.
>
>Something has been lost because of the success of Dorling Kindersley's
>approach, but a huge amount gained, because the London publishing
>packagers became the best in the world as a result. But we have not
>returned to the point where any OTHER type of book design is fashionable
>- we are still in that 1970s groove.

Just as the Harry Potter books have encouraged vast numbers of
children to read fiction, the Dorling Kindersley books have encouraged
vast numbers of people of all ages to read non-fiction. We owe JK
Rowling a debt of gratitude for encouraging children (and some adults)
to put down their Playstation joysticks and pick up a work of fiction.
I think we also owe Dorling Kindersley a debt of gratitude for making
learning fun by making so much information so easily accessible.

My own experience in delivering education and training taught me that
making things easy to understand encourages people to learn. It is
all too easy to turn people off with long sentences and seemingly
endless paragraphs. They might be full of information but that is of
no use if people lose interest.

If people don't buy books, or don't read them, the quality of the
content is quite irrelevant.

>My only argument with popular and standard pro photo magazines is that
>graphic design, and potted presentation, take precedence over decent
>large pictures. With each successive improvement in digital resolution,
>I've always tried to print tes shots which showed first a full page,
>then a spread, with maximum enlargement insets if that is not enough.
>When the Phase One P45 is available - or a reliable test image is
>supplied - I intend to print it A2 as a four-A4 foldout one side of an
>entire running sheet, to show what a 39 megapixel image looks like.
>
>I have no doubt at least one mag will print a full page shot of the
>camera back and a 2 x 3 inch repro of the image it produces :-)

ROTFL!!! I'm sure you will be proved right. Several titles spring to
mind ... the utterly dreadful Pop Photo being at the top of the list.

;-)

>that is actually part of the Dorling Kindersley legacy where very large
>clear (entirely copyright owned) studio shots are used and photo
>examples (more personal in choice, often subject to usage fees) kept
>subordinate. Again, I am not referring to DK themselves, but to the
>style they engendered and what has become of it.

One of the books I would hold up as a good example of the readable
style I support is "Creative 35mm Photography". My copy was published
in 1983 by Amphoto. The author was ... David Kilpatrick.

Any relation?

;-)
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 6:21:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm sorry you should feel it necessary to spoil a potentially useful
>discussion on magazine publishing with a personal attack.


I'm sorry I had to stoop so low when replying to yours.

You chose to post from the gutter. I merely replied.

;-)
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 6:24:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> John Fryatt wrote:
>
> GMC is the best hope you have. Keith Wilson and Ailsa McWhinnie both
> come from the same direction as I do editorially/designwise, and they
> have a VERY good company behind them. Outdoor Photography and Black and
> White Photography are in a class of their own on the news-stands.
>

Agreed, that's the reason why I'm a subscriber to Outdoor Photography
(before that, my favorite was Photo Technique, but nearly the same
crew).
I was tempted to subscribe to Black&White Photography,but B&W isn't my
cup of tea...

Regards from Athens,
N.Fotis
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 6:26:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

>GMC is the best hope you have. Keith Wilson and Ailsa McWhinnie both
>come from the same direction as I do editorially/designwise, and they
>have a VERY good company behind them. Outdoor Photography and Black and
>White Photography are in a class of their own on the news-stands.


Agree 100%.
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 1:45:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:


> One of the books I would hold up as a good example of the readable
> style I support is "Creative 35mm Photography". My copy was published
> in 1983 by Amphoto. The author was ... David Kilpatrick.
>
> Any relation?
>

I wish! I was as much the author of that as John Hedgecoe was the author
of his best-known book (maybe slightly more). John didn't write any of
his book as far as I know, it was entirely produced by a team of
freelances and staff editors, with JH calling in daily to oversee the
content and provide the photographs.

I haven't actually seen the Amphoto spin-off, which was probably
generated by Eaglemoss or Marshall Cavendish, who paid to use the names
of individual writers based on who was mainly responsible for the
content. It's possible that it is nearly all mine but unlikely. We did
so many of these (about one a month) that I can't remember doing it but
probably reworked material for it (at that time, it was the colour
separations which were valuable, and re-use of the physical film was the
economic basis for these spin-offs).

These were more magazine-style books, with chapters like articles, and
not as heavily designed as some later products.

David
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 3:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In message <dfbrce$js$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

>
>
> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>
>> One of the books I would hold up as a good example of the readable
>> style I support is "Creative 35mm Photography". My copy was published
>> in 1983 by Amphoto. The author was ... David Kilpatrick.
>>
>> Any relation?
>>
>
> I wish! I was as much the author of that as John Hedgecoe was the author
> of his best-known book (maybe slightly more). John didn't write any of
> his book as far as I know, it was entirely produced by a team of
> freelances and staff editors, with JH calling in daily to oversee the
> content and provide the photographs.
>
That's really hysterical, considering the number of times I've loaned
out or recommended that and other JH books with comments along the
lines of "the photos are naff, but the text is good".

(Probably, to be fair, the photos are 'of their time': when I say
'naff' I'm referring the content, not to the compostion/technical
aspects.)

Slainte

Liz

--
Virtual Liz: http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
Photo blog of Make Povery History rally in Edinburgh 2 July 2005:
http://www.v-liz.com/g8rally/protest.htm
!