The new UK magazine, Advanced Photographer, has reached Issue 3. There has definitely been a gap in the English-language market for such a magazine - filling a niche which is filled in various ways in the French & German markets, for example - and it was going to be interesting to see if they could pull it off.

The UK mainstream photographic magazine market has been full of bland, formulaic, repetitive dross for ages, with hordes of identikit publications endlessly recycling the same shallow, bland and mind numbingly predictable stuff, half-disguised advertising, pointless “reviews”, and with weak attempts at comedy apparently more valued than worthwhile content. And it isn’t helped by padding out with inane trash from the usual rent-an-experts like Andy Rouse.  For example. The only exception (which does actually feature said prat) is Amateur Photographer, which is pretty much unique as a weekly, and does still maintain high standards.

So there were reasons to be skeptical. However, since Will Cheung is the editor, and during his time as editor of Practical Photographer it was actually worth reading, there were also reasons to be hopeful.

Having subscribed “blind”, I’m happy to say that it was worth it. After three issues, which I haven’t even had time to finish yet, I’d say Will Cheung is doing a great job. A good sign is that I even read, and enjoy, articles on topics I have zero actually interest in - studio lighting for example.  Everything is well written, with genuine depth, and a sense of pushing some boundaries. I’d say there is little, or no, fluff or filling, and the equipment reviews are comparable in quality and worth to the best of the continental magazines.

In general I’d rate Advanced Photographer at the same level as the “expert-level” content of Reponses Photo, which puts it at a very high standard.  It will be interesting to see if they can keep it up, but so far the signs are good.

If you’re a voracious reader like me, or if you’re looking for something beyond the patronising, advertiser-friendly stuff you find in most magazines, give Advanced Photographer a try.

During my last mercifully short trip to the UK, I found time to pick up some of the latest copies of a series of British photo magazines (actually, thanks to British Airways, I didn't have to try very hard to find the time). One of these magazines was the recently launched DSLR magazine. Actually, the previous time I was in London I picked up issue 1. It must be difficult for editors of these magazines to find new angles and new stories. Photography can get repetitive at times ... just take a look at any issue of Outdoor Photography (which I subscribe to). I actually like landscape photography, but in {insert deity here}'s name, how many wide angle, low viewpoint, long exposure, sunset views of incoming tides over rocky beaches do we need ? An infinite number it seems. DSLR Magazine seems, on the sample I've seen so far, to be trying a bit harder to avoid the clichés, and is also avoid the trap of getting stuck at beginner level, like Practical Photography. I've decided it is worth the (quite expensive) international subscription, to see how it turns out. DSLR magazine also runs a promising website, with plenty of user-contributed material. And as far as Olympus DSLRs are concerned, well it seems that they're fans - as well as partnering with Olympus to run monthly competitions. Want to win an E-410 ? Go an take a look here.

I was quite surprised to find that the UK monthly magazine, Practical Photography, chose to publish two photographs I submitted to them in October.

The photographs were both taken with the Olympus E-1, which shows that 5Mpix is actually quite adequate for publication.

Since this was only my second attempt at getting published, I suppose I'm allowed to feel slightly pleased with myself - especially since my subject, puffins, was hardly original in itself. Now the pressure is on for a follow-up...

Well I still can't bring myself to buy a digital SLR. I came close, but then I did a quick calculation, and worked out that by the time I'd finished making up the theoretical savings in film and processing cost, then whatever I bought would be terminally obsolete - i.e. in about 18 months. Of course it would still work, it would still take photos as well as it ever did - but some new device would be on the market driving gear lust, and I'd be spending hours rationalising to myself why I have to have it. And that is pretty much where we come in - I have, to a great extent, all I need now to enjoy photography. Even too much. I have some growing doubts that there is something slightly wrong with the focussing of my Canon T90, but it could just as well be my eyes.

Yesterday I saw a shop window with more or less the whole array of DSLRs proudly lined up, from Canon 1Ds to Pentax *istD, via Nikon, Olympus and Fuji. And all at, let's face it, breathtaking prices. Yes, really. Magazines, internet pundits, manufacturers (obviously) are lining up to tell all photographers that without a DSLR they can't take photos anymore. And that they should "upgrade" to a camera which, in terms of basic picture-taking capability, is on average 5 to 10 times more expensive than an equivalent film camera. And yet, even with these wonders, you can find endless discussion lists all over the internet devoted to desperate owners trying to debug their new wondertoys.

I know this sounds like sour grapes, but it isn't. I cannot deny my credit card was twitching outside that shop. But I'm getting more and more aware of the fact that I'm only prone to DSLR envy when I'm not out taking photographs. When I'm happily using my Hasselblad Xpan, my Canon T90, my new (old) Fuji GS670, or even my little Ricoh GR1, I don't think about whatever DSLR XYZ1000 at all. I don't even think about it when I'm stuck for hours in front of a film scanner. The only time I do think "hmm, well, maybe" is when I'm trying to find space to store away the latest box of slides.

And in that same shop, in the secondhand window, were devices like a Canon EOS 1v, a Leica R8 and M6, a Hasselblad 503cw, in pristine condition and at frankly jaw dropping prices I would not have believed a year ago. And these, I think, would help me to improve my photography.

If I was a pro, with deadlines and income-limiting workflow issues, then, obviously, a DSLR would be in many (most?) cases a no-brainer. But is it really a good idea for amateurs such as me to end up multiplying their gear budget by such a huge factor, and yet end up with, at best, slightly better results and slightly more convenience, and at worst, worse results because they can't afford quality lenses any more ?

There's nothing wrong with digital on technical grounds - quite the opposite - but I think I can wait until the prices make sense, even if, somehow, this means I can't be taken seriously any more...

I couldn't resist a quick extra rant on the topic of poor reviews in magazines when I saw the latest issue of Practical Photography (UK).
This issue reviews the Kodak DCS Pro 14n, a camera that has had mixed reviews in general (and I'm being polite). PP do not appear to particularly mind that a camera listed at £4224 has a viewfinder you can't even get your eye up to - the "Handling" score, with the comment "The main camera controls are there, but there are plenty of niggles", is 86%! How many "niggles" do you need to reach 70% - or even 50% ? How bad a camera would plumb such depths ? At least the main controls are there - hey, for £4000+ I would tend to expect them to pretty well glued on too! Image Quality..."Superb from the RAW files at low ISOs, less impressive from the JPEGs" - this is worth 93%! I suppose a Canon EOS 1Ds would get 150% then ? I could go on (and on), but the total score for a camera which is generally reckoned by informed experts to be just a few feathers short of a turkey is 88%. One note though: the article repeatedly states that the 14n was designed for portrait and wedding photographers (good thing they don't need viewfinders..do they?). This seemed suspicious, so I checked on Kodak's web site. Indeed, Kodak do say this (actually they say exactly what PP say, demonstrating PP's skill with Cut & Paste). I digged further and found that they were saying this back before launch too. So, in this context, scathing comments in certain wildlife / landscape oriented reviews were maybe a bit unfair too.
However, as for PP - I could get over it if it was an isolated case, but in the very same issue we are presented with a two page review of the Rollei 35MF rangefinder. Not once -despite picking on the price as a weak point - do they point out the fundamental fact that this overpriced vanity object is nothing other than a badged engineered Cosina, er, sorry, Voigtlander.

Frankly I find this reporting irresponsible at best and dishonest at worst. Practical Photography is actually one of the best photographer magazines in the English language, with great columnists such as David Noton and Andy Rouse, but their so-called reviews do them a serious discredit and are cynically disregarding of their readers.