Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Shutterbug Was Re: Emotive lenses
From: "C.M. Fortunko" <fortunko@boulder.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 05:25:16 -0600

Friends,

I am also fed up with Shutterbug. I like Roger Hicks pieces, because of his
style and honesty. I don't like much else. 

In the past, I would buy Shutterbug to look at the ads. Now, this can be
done on the Web. Therefore, there is less reason to buy.

By the way, I would welcome your opinions on other magazines.

Best,

Chris


At 06:37 AM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>I disagree with that policy and think it doesn't serve the public, he's
>>sticking to it, he owns the magazine, and that's why it looks like he loves
>>everything. Sort of self-fulfilling.
>>
>>BTW, I think he's a lousy glamor photographer, (mediocre models in pained
>>poses) and his recent criticism of the SI swimsuit issue was the height of
>>blindness, not to mention irony.
>>
>>===========
>>Eric Welch
>>Grants Pass, OR
>>
>
>I have to agree with the above.  I'm rather fond of shutterbug (as compared
>to Pop photo or Petersen's) but it has its limitations.  e.g. Shell's
>contribution to the F5 review in 11/96 issue was done without shooting a
>frame.  You get better data off the Nikon web page.
>And as for glamour?  I don't want to get in trouble by saying what I think.
>"Lousy" is appropriate.
>
>I do enjoy Roger Hick's columns.  He uses mostly older Leicas, bought used.
>He has a low key approach that encourages creativity and his images are
>accessible.  By that I mean, I can read his articles and say to myself, "I
>could do that if I'm careful."  Some guys (e.g. Galen Rowell) go for a glitz
>which is eyecatching but unrepeatable.  For example, I'm never going to
>rapell into an antipodean ice cave with an N90 to test the flash.
>Craig W. Shier
>shier@mnsinc.com
>
>
>