David Kilpatrick
2007-01-07 15:14:11 UTC
I have parted with f2 (Freelance+Digital) which, seven years after the
original relaunch as Freelance Photographer, was proving too much of a
loss-maker to continue with. It's now published by EC1 Publishing in
London, and is slowly focusing more on case histories of photographers.
I'm still writing the main technical reviews. The cost of f2 is lower
than some UK mags because it's bi-monthly, and the emphasis is entirely
on freelance stock and editorial work. The new publishers are no more
inclined to write about cheesy digital manipulations and stuff than I
was. It's largely about raw workflow, IQ, and subject matter plus a lot
of marketing insights. They have made it break even by cutting all paid
contributors. I was spending about $20,000 a year on external material.
They are doing interviews instead and keeping all technical stuff
in-house, but that includes me although I'm not 'in house'. I continue
to have about 600 subscribers through my own company, and in return for
these, I write three articles for every issue.
It's still possible to subscribe via my old website, as the new
publishers have not taken over that yet. The website also has a large
stack of past articles, and I am putting articles from our current pro
magazine, Master Photo>Digital, on line for download. I don't recommend
anyone buys Master unless they are seriously into wedding, portraits and
commercial studio work. It is entirely aimed at full time professional
business owners, generally with studios, staff, etc and dealing with the
public. We occasionally cover stock, as most of the best members of the
MPA do shoot stock - it's only the real specialists with massive fees,
or the unambitious ones at the other end of the scale doing free
promotions, who *only* do 'weddings and portraits'.
Info at: www.iconpublications.com
and www.f2photo.co.uk (for the downloads - latest one is the first part
of our currently in progress review of the Mamiya ZD system).
In general UK magazines are aimed at a fairly non-technical public. The
best all-round read for any professional is, without doubt, the British
Journal of Photography - this is weekly and the expense overseas is no
small commitment. But it's where you will find all the adverts for
international tenders, contracts, jobs, degree courses, university
appointments, etc. 'Professional Photographer', for a long time my main
rival, is a bit of a mixed bag. It's a nice looking magazine with a
successful advertising team, quite good in pagination, but lacks an
overall character. Goes with the flow (commercially). Photography
Monthly is the amateur, mass-market sister to Professional. It is even
more vapid - 'not another one of s*dding misty water flowing round THOSE
bl**dy stones'. At least PP is not predictably full of this same
identikit am-pro camera club stuff, which also fills Practical
Photography. We fall about laughing every time an issue of either drops
in; you couldn't tell the pix from 1995, or 1990, or 2000. You could
draw a photo map (horizon two-thirds of the way up the shot, an
ultrawide, a grad, a warm-up, a time exposure) with twenty sets of
tripod holes round the UK and that would be sum-total ambition of the
average reader. 'Sorry, love, got to get up early to repeat Joe
Cornish's shot of the beach'... 'Can we go and freeze to death looking
for that stream with the Cuillins in the distance?'... 'How the hell did
Lee Frost ever find the footpath to the place where you can get that
shot of Dunstanburgh Castle?'
'Digital Photographer' is excellent. Digital Camera and Digital Photo,
not so really. 'Outdoor Photographer' while suffering slightly from the
stereotype desirable image syndrome is much cleaner in layout than most,
and more focused and varied.
The very short print runs of UK magazines (anything from 2000 to 15,000
copies for many of the pro ones - the BJP for example is about 6,000
print run) means they can be very up to date, going to press maybe 48
hours before they are mailed, and are often sheet-fed, which means
higher image quality. All of my magazines over the last few years have
been in the order of a 3,000 print run. There are only about 10,000 bona
fide professionals in the UK.
David
original relaunch as Freelance Photographer, was proving too much of a
loss-maker to continue with. It's now published by EC1 Publishing in
London, and is slowly focusing more on case histories of photographers.
I'm still writing the main technical reviews. The cost of f2 is lower
than some UK mags because it's bi-monthly, and the emphasis is entirely
on freelance stock and editorial work. The new publishers are no more
inclined to write about cheesy digital manipulations and stuff than I
was. It's largely about raw workflow, IQ, and subject matter plus a lot
of marketing insights. They have made it break even by cutting all paid
contributors. I was spending about $20,000 a year on external material.
They are doing interviews instead and keeping all technical stuff
in-house, but that includes me although I'm not 'in house'. I continue
to have about 600 subscribers through my own company, and in return for
these, I write three articles for every issue.
It's still possible to subscribe via my old website, as the new
publishers have not taken over that yet. The website also has a large
stack of past articles, and I am putting articles from our current pro
magazine, Master Photo>Digital, on line for download. I don't recommend
anyone buys Master unless they are seriously into wedding, portraits and
commercial studio work. It is entirely aimed at full time professional
business owners, generally with studios, staff, etc and dealing with the
public. We occasionally cover stock, as most of the best members of the
MPA do shoot stock - it's only the real specialists with massive fees,
or the unambitious ones at the other end of the scale doing free
promotions, who *only* do 'weddings and portraits'.
Info at: www.iconpublications.com
and www.f2photo.co.uk (for the downloads - latest one is the first part
of our currently in progress review of the Mamiya ZD system).
In general UK magazines are aimed at a fairly non-technical public. The
best all-round read for any professional is, without doubt, the British
Journal of Photography - this is weekly and the expense overseas is no
small commitment. But it's where you will find all the adverts for
international tenders, contracts, jobs, degree courses, university
appointments, etc. 'Professional Photographer', for a long time my main
rival, is a bit of a mixed bag. It's a nice looking magazine with a
successful advertising team, quite good in pagination, but lacks an
overall character. Goes with the flow (commercially). Photography
Monthly is the amateur, mass-market sister to Professional. It is even
more vapid - 'not another one of s*dding misty water flowing round THOSE
bl**dy stones'. At least PP is not predictably full of this same
identikit am-pro camera club stuff, which also fills Practical
Photography. We fall about laughing every time an issue of either drops
in; you couldn't tell the pix from 1995, or 1990, or 2000. You could
draw a photo map (horizon two-thirds of the way up the shot, an
ultrawide, a grad, a warm-up, a time exposure) with twenty sets of
tripod holes round the UK and that would be sum-total ambition of the
average reader. 'Sorry, love, got to get up early to repeat Joe
Cornish's shot of the beach'... 'Can we go and freeze to death looking
for that stream with the Cuillins in the distance?'... 'How the hell did
Lee Frost ever find the footpath to the place where you can get that
shot of Dunstanburgh Castle?'
'Digital Photographer' is excellent. Digital Camera and Digital Photo,
not so really. 'Outdoor Photographer' while suffering slightly from the
stereotype desirable image syndrome is much cleaner in layout than most,
and more focused and varied.
The very short print runs of UK magazines (anything from 2000 to 15,000
copies for many of the pro ones - the BJP for example is about 6,000
print run) means they can be very up to date, going to press maybe 48
hours before they are mailed, and are often sheet-fed, which means
higher image quality. All of my magazines over the last few years have
been in the order of a 3,000 print run. There are only about 10,000 bona
fide professionals in the UK.
David