Did your copy of Photo News magazine show up in your morning newspaper delivery?
Mine did and Vol. 23, No. 2 of this free magazine is a winner.
Now a many of you know I was a national magazine editor and group editor and I’m pretty picky about what I like or don’t like when it comes to magazines and I like Photo News.
Why? First almost all of the images are first-class knockouts. Now this is personal preference only as all of the images were shot by very competent pros at the top of their games and I’m not doing a critique here but let’s put it this way: I like sharp well focused images. I like to see contrasty as opposed to bland images. That’s called snap. I like images that aren’t overly posed or overly processed. My background is news photography so I like reality and grit. Oh yeah, I like colour and black and white when handled correctly and I like images that are interesting to me the viewer and not just interesting to the photographer.
And I especially liked the outdoor nature photography. Michelle Valberg’s cover shot (see photo) is sensational IMHO. The landscape and bird shots are amazing. You have no idea how hard it is to shoot a bird that’s no bigger than an expresso cup even if you set up a blind or a background behind your own bird feeder. BTW do you know how pros get those amazing shots of owls flying face-on towards the camera at full speed? Hate to tell you but there’s often a mouse involved who would rather not be there.
So why read photo magazines at all?
It’s to get ideas in your head for shooting when you’re in the field. At my first newspaper we got People magazine every week just to see how the big boys shot people on the run. The online site for the magazine has a shot of kids drinking from a water hose which is classic and likely setup by the photographer. You can get this priceless shot yourself using just about any camera.
BTW check the lenses that most of these photographers are using. A lot of the really good shots were made with lenses that don’t cost a lot or are available less expensively by secondary manufacturers such as Tamron. Photo News has a review of the Tamron (I’m guessing Tamron is a sponsor of the magazine but that’s okay. After my initial experience with my own Tamron 18-270mm super zoom I’m a new fan.) 90mm F/2.8 macro lens which at $500 or so is half the price of my Nikon 105 F/2.5 macro. Sure there’s a difference in the lenses but if you’re not shooting for National Geographic or doing massive blowup printing you’re not likely to see a difference from one image to the other.
The review was by Gordon Brown and here’s a link to his Flickr site. This guy is very very good 🙂 and so is the magazine.