|
|
From the Editor: VOL. 4, NO.1 • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2003
 Once a year we sponsor a direct mail campaign to gain new subscribers, the life blood of any publication. We have just completed such a campaign, and have gained many new subscribers, many who had never heard of Photovision, but, impressed by our dazzling mail piece, have decided to take a chance. It is those I wish to address in the first part of this column.Photovision is about the art and technique of photography, with the emphasis on art. In my opinion, art includes all aspects of the human experience that can be recorded, tragedy and joy, war and peace, the beautiful and the ugly, humor and lack thereof, sexuality—yes, sexuality. In France if you mention “the nude” the conversation turns to Degas, Gaugin, and what’s showing at the Louvre. In the U.S. if you mention nude, the conversation turns to Playboy or Hustler magazines, after the giggling dies down. In my opinion the nude is an integral part of the history and creation of art. However, I am sensitive to the fact that many Americans don’t want to be exposed to nudity. So, we have chosen to dedicate one issue a year to photographers working with this art form, rather than several issues. Well, this is it. If this is your first issue of Photovision and nudity offends you, my apologies. Read the book reviews, “In Our Opinion,” “The View from Here,” then skip to the back and enjoy the work of Life photographer Andreas Feininger and the technical features. You won’t be seeing any nude portfolios for at least six more issues, by which time you’ll be so in love with Photovision that you won’t want to be without it. On another note, and this concerns our regular readers as well as the newbies, in the July/August 2003 issue I asked readers what they want to see more of in Photovision. I even went so far as to ask, do you want articles on digital lightroom discussed? Perhaps this last was a mistake, as PV has always been dedicated to traditional forms of photography. Indeed, we’ve taken a militant stance on this issue. We received a number of letters, emails, and phone calls from irate readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions if we included the “D” word anywhere in the magazine, outside my column and letters from readers. However, we have received even more letters, emails, and phone calls from readers asking that we please include some digital in their favorite magazine. To paraphrase a phone conversation I had with one reader, “I have canceled all my other subscriptions except Photovision, which I read cover to cover. But sometimes I feel as if I am missing something by not having anything on digital. I’m still using film, but I would like to know what is going on in the broader world of photography.” We are struggling to remain purely film. However, after three years and 19 issues, we can’t seem to come up with enough subscribers to pay the overhead. Is this due to poor marketing or apathy on the part of film photographers? For example, on June 6, I posted a message on a web site, devoted entirely to film-based photography. I explained to the 720 members that PV is the only magazine dealing with all aspects of film-based photography. I offered a free issue to the first 100 members that wrote or called, no obligation. To date, thirty-four members have taken me up on the offer for a free issue and less than that have subscribed. What are we to do? Do film photographers just not care? Do they not realize that if PV dies or changes editorial policies that the manufacturers will have another reason to stop producing film products? As one subscriber wrote, “If Photovision disappears what is the message to manufacturers? Simply that there is not enough interest and that they are correct in thinking that digital is the correct choice for them.” We have not made the decision to expand into digital, though believe me, we’ve had some heated discussions. However, should we feel the need to make this change in order to continue publication, what I will insist upon is that our digital content focus on portfolios of photographers using the new media, possibly some reviews of software and/or equipment of interest to our readers who, largely due to their overwhelming interest in film, may wish to at least know what is available for them to use. As I said, no one at Photovision is ready to give up or give in—yet. But should it come to pass that we do allow digital portfolios (which are currently excluded) we hope that you will stand by us. Steve Anchell Editor Email: pvedit@ctelco.net |