Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D. It's OK to not like Shutterbug, but it is only one small example of thousands of poorly produced publications in this country alone, which contribute to the death of trees. You just have much higher visual and content standards than some folks, like many of us on the LUG. Shutterbug get pilloried here regularly because it is a particularly good example of a bad publication, that happens to be loosely based on a craft, either writing or photography (or both), from which we make a living, or participate in as more than "just" a hobby. It's too bad that more of the Shutterbug advertisers haven't spread out their ad dollars to better publications over the years, and I'm not including Pop Photo and that ilk in the group either. Maybe we'd have more choice in quality photography publications if they had. I bet that if the contract advertisers in today's Shutterbug and Popular Photography, got together and told the magazine publishers that they were pulling their ads unless the editorial content were improved, things would change quickly. Are you listening Henry Posner?? cheers Scott Stewart In a message dated 1/25/01 9:19:10 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: >After all, no ads, no publication...which, I >know, is true of every publication...but when the publication in >question is one killing trees only to have a place to run ads...well... > >B. D.