Topic: Focus Fine Art Photography Magazine

[beck]

I was surprised to open an email today and seen that is was from David Spivak and Focus enquiring about my photography...and learned that my friend David Wilcox, had received one as well. They would like to speak with us about our work.

I'm familiar with the magazine, but never purchased one. We were wondering what it may mean that they "would like to speak with us?" Possibly a feature? We don't know really and are scratching our heads over how they learned of our work, etc. We are chuffed if that is indeed what the enquiry is about.

http://www.focusmag.info/

Any thoughts?

[LT]

I just had a look at the website - seems like a nice mag and lots of big names splashed around it - but looking at the submissions page - it looksl ike you have to pay them to have your stuff in it?  am I reading that right?  and we arent talking a few pennies here either. they are selling a mag on the back of exhibiting artists work then charging the artists for the privelege. Sounds like a huge scam to me.

[beck]

Yea...I was aware of the fine print when first looking over the site too...and thought, wtf?? But I went along and gave the gent a reply anyhow. We both were thinking, why would we receive such an email over the weekend?? And then you start doing the math and it's not adding up in my book. My friend and I would just as soon pay to have an ad featured for the exposure elsewhere than to provide the gloss on some cover. I'm willing to bet Keith Carter didn't shell out any clams for that interview either. I'll wait for Mr. Spivak's email and tell him nicely, uh, no thanks. If anything, I wanted to know how he knew of our work. Perhaps he seen the shot in B&W...me thinks.

Here's the email:

"Hi, my name is David Spivak publisher of Focus magazine and I'd like to talk to you about your photography. Can you please give me a call Monday so we can discuss your work? Thanks."

David S. Spivak
Publisher Focus Magazine
718.360.4724
NYFocus 2008

[LT]

Beck - it may be that, as he has approached you, you might the exposure for free, or even get paid?  dont give up on it yet, see if you can have a chat with the gent and check-out the lie of the land.

[Skorj]

Never hurts to follow through. I get approached sometimes for my work (people amaze me), and often they want to sell me space. Other times though it is legit and they actually want to publish something. Go figure! Hopefully, your inquiry will sit in the second category - the work is sure strong enough! Good luck regardless.

(Just had one today requesting my work actually, anyone heard of www.resourcemagonline.com - thanks!)

[DavidS]

I just had a look at the website - seems like a nice mag and lots of big names splashed around it - but looking at the submissions page - it looksl ike you have to pay them to have your stuff in it?  am I reading that right?  and we arent talking a few pennies here either. they are selling a mag on the back of exhibiting artists work then charging the artists for the privelege. Sounds like a huge scam to me.

Thank you for your feedback and for everyone's comments regarding Focus Magazine. We are in no way as you said, a scam. Let me ask you something: Should Canon get to exhibit its cameras for free inside of a magazine because its cameras help create masterful works of art? Should a gallery get to display their latest exhibition for free inside of a magazine because it's art? The answer is, of course, no. These are all companies looking to sell their products, whether it be a camera or phototography, to people who will buy them. Such is the purpose of Focus Magazine. The Focus Gallery, which is where photographers exhibit their work, is an area of Focus Magazine where the work is being exhibited because it is quality work which meet our standards and is for sale. Collectors will see it, hopefully like it or love it and then buy it. A photographer stands a great chance of selling their work for being exhibited in Focus Magazine, because you're reaching tens of thousands of collectors of fine art photography that you would have never had the opportunity to reach without our help. Not only that, but a photographer also stands to make money off of selling their work. As they should!

So, galleries have to pay for selling fine art photography in Focus Magazine, Art in America, ArtForum, etc. Why should photographers, who are selling the exact same product have the ability to exhibit their work for free? They shouldn't and they don't. So, photographers sell their products through the pages of Focus Magazine or in other words, advertise it. And the prices you see on the website www.focusmag.info/submissions are for MULTIPLE PAGES in MULTIPLE ISSUES, so in reality, the per page cost is very low. We've had over 43% of photographers who've advertised with us sell their work through our pages and now Focus Magazine will be printed via sheetfed, which is going to enhance our quality even more. Photographers have the opportunity to sell their work through the pages of Focus Magazine and make money off of their exhibition. Focus Magazine should also have the opportunity to make money off of that as well.

[db]

Hi David
Thanks for clarifying your business model. I agree that source books are popular publications and very useful for editorial and advertising art buyers around the world. I have a few on my shelves too, just for the variety of great work I see in them.

But I'm sure you can also see how the slightly veiled wording in your email led to some doubt and suspicion in this thread. Advertising and self promotion is  fine and wonderful, but should not be confused with a magazine whose picture editor 'curates' each edition with an independent eye.

It's like the distinction between journalism and 'advertorials' sponsored by the companies who buy space elsewhere in the same publication. And to pick up on your gallery analogy, like the difference between buying yourself three weeks hanging time in a private gallery, as opposed to work being purchased, or invited to hang in a public collection.

Best wishes for your magazine.

[DavidS]

I'm not exactly sure I would call Focus a "sourcebook."

My wording was meant to be simple and concise and instead of people pre-judging the opportunity before they heard me explain to them, it was meant to attract curiosity in interest in their work.

Why can't a magazine that asks photographers to pay for advertising only ask a select few whose work we feel are excellent? Inclusion in Focus has never been just on budget alone...otherwise no one would take us seriously. We always look at the photographer's work, but we look at it from more of marketability standpoint in addition to a fine piece of work standpoint.

Let's use the comparison of an art gallery. A curator of an art gallery is the person soley in charge of buying and selling artwork from a photographer. The standard commission is uaully around 50% of whatever they sell. Simply put a photographer should be in charge of his or her own work if they are not represented by a gallery. We are a magazine and not a gallery, therefore; if a photographer sold his or her work through the pages of Focus without us having them pay us for the initial exhibition, there would be no way for us to make any kind of money whatsoever. And I don't know about any of you, but I certainly am not a billionaire who can afford to print a magazine and lose money on it. The revenue that our other advertising brings in is nice and helps keep the lights on and pay our writers, but to truly produce a magazine of our quality with the page count we have and using color, we must have some other source of revenue....

Thanks for clarifying your business model. I agree that source books are popular publications and very useful for editorial and advertising art buyers around the world. I have a few on my shelves too, just for the variety of great work I see in them.

But I'm sure you can also see how the slightly veiled wording in your email led to some doubt and suspicion in this thread. Advertising and self promotion is  fine and wonderful, but should not be confused with a magazine whose picture editor 'curates' each edition with an independent eye.

It's like the distinction between journalism and 'advertorials' sponsored by the companies who buy space elsewhere in the same publication. And to pick up on your gallery analogy, like the difference between buying yourself three weeks hanging time in a private gallery, as opposed to work being purchased, or invited to hang in a public collection.

Best wishes for your magazine.

[beck]

This is preciously why I made the post. For advice to what is not all that familiar to me. David, on the other hand, is, as he deals with curators, editors and so on, now and then. While he was questioning the email itself as well, he talked with a friend who is familiar and thought it, well, odd. And frankly, I can't tell you how many times I've been asked for photographs to be used for cd and book covers...only to never hear from them again...though no reflection on you or Focus. 

I'll admit to the confusion when seeing your message, Mr. Spivak, and thought perhaps you wanted to talk about having our work featured in Focus. For the exposure. For nothing. Then skimming through the site, is when I read the fine print.

David and I don't exactly have the resources to go along with your request right now, sadly and unfortunately, but we appreciate your asking and your interest. Perhaps in the future, if you are indeed still interested, we could very well fill that order. In the mean time, we are satisfied with the exposure and positive feedback we receive through various sites, galleries, in and around the Boston area...and the opportunity and possibilities to have our work featured in magazines such as B&W, Shots...and so on.


I thank you for coming by to clear up any further confusion...though I am still wondering what exactly you wanted to speak over? You hadn't replied to my email...

Also, we were curious as to how you found our work?
Again, thank you for stopping by...

[LT]

OK - thanks for joining in the debate David - we usually tend to discourage business owners/ representatives from discussing their products on this forum as it is against our principles (unless it would directly benefit our members or the site itself), but I can see why you would need to come back on a few things that have been said so far, so we'll let this one go by, just this time I look forward to your contributions on other threads in the forum

Apologies for the use of the word scam - I think we may have some cultural/ colloquial differences at play here.  I didnt necessarily mean con, but it is possible that for the amount your are asking photographers to pay for space, it would take some time to recoup the cost and make on it.

As far as I am aware, galleries do not charge to exhibit, they charge commission on sales, which is an entirely different thing to what you are asking for.  I think your high pricing removes a huge swathe of very talented yet not very wealthy artists from being featured in your publication which is a sad state of affairs - however, there are quite a few well known and successful magazines that will allow them space for free. And, after all, whose business is it how you run your magazine other than your own so good luck with it - I hope you do eventually manage to to get a bit more out of it than keeping the utilities bills covered.

I just realised - you are the DavidS who used be a member over at APUG arent you ... small world eh?

[lauraburlton]

Just a note regarding galleries... there are more than a few here in town that we call "vanity galleries" where you do actually rent wall space and the owners do go over the work they submit. Most of them have some quality work that might not be otherwise seen elsewhere at a big name gallery, but you do have to pay to exhibit.  I guess they offer the opportunity for artists that cannot secure representation to showcase their work. That said however, I personally do not have the cash or inclination to go this route. I could see how a magazine like Focus could bring you exposure, therefore sales, and it would be a similar thing as the vanity galleries.  I have seen Focus before and it seems like a quality publication and is widely available ( at least in the US) so that would be a plus. But having said that, I have had features in other magazines and have not gained sales from them so I would be hard pressed to spend my money on something like this. Mind you, the publications I have been published in were geared more for enthusiasts, rather than collectors, so I am not sure how this would work.

[Phil Bebbington]

Interesting post for sure...something we have all been tempted by at times...a nice cut and thrust but Leon! I read all the way down uttering various booze encouraged words but as I read your final post I just sat and smiled...thank you for cutting through the shit, reading between the lines and saying what so many of us were thinking.

[dave.w]

Having artists pay to be in an ?art? magazine is a bad idea. When I read a restaurant review in the Times, I?m safe to assume the restaurant did not pay the critic to write a glowing piece about them. You may have standards on who is in your magazine, but the time will come when someone will say, ?Is the work good? I don?t know, I?ll let the boys in marketing figure it out?.

The fact that you don?t mention the fee upfront tells me that you know what you?re doing is wrong. It may not be a scam, there is an actual magazine, but what you?re doing is dishonest.  It?s like those adds you see asking poets to send in their poems, and a small fee, for the privilege of being published and the chance to be ?discovered?. No one buys these collected volumes of poetry because most people know it?s a money making scam.

A real letter from a reputable publication will say where they saw your work, what they liked about it, why they want to publish it and in what issue. Not this vague form letter that says you will be published and hide the fact there?s a fee.

I?m writing this not for you, Mr. Spivak, I could care less about you. I?m writing this for all the artist out there who are not as cynical and more trusting than me that may fall for your promises. So be careful people, there are a lot of good publication out there, be patient and do your research before writing that check.

[Susan B.]

I'm late to the party, but I have to chime in.
I read Focus on a regular basis. It's top magazine. One of my galleries advertises in it now and then.

I'm not supporting any sides of this argument, but want to point out a few facts here. I guess this is a broader discussion but it's worth pointing out.

Truth be told folks, art is commerce. You don't want to think this until your in the thick of  it, but there's no escaping these facts unless you are doing it purely for art sake and don't intend to make money at it.
If you do intend to sell prints, exhibit in shows (if you are not in a gallery), attend reviews, submit to contests, etc you have to pay to play 99% of the time. It's frustrating as all hell, but it's the way of the competitive art world. No way around it unless you have the good fortune of landing in a gallery by chance...but then you will find that you have to invest in your career to branch out from just one gallery. It never stops. Trust me. Aline and I have had this discussion many times. I trust she will say the same.

Why I could not afford these rates, many can. Yes, there's the argument that you have to be wealthy to be published--but this argument has been around for years about the affordability of photography. I don't like it, but it's the way it is. That's why I donate my time to teach kids who can't afford to learn in the inner cities or shelters. And as much as I have a love hate with digital, the technology helps people who could not previously afford gain access. And that's why Filmwasters exists and is funded by the five of us---to keep the commerce out of art. So that we can all post freely and not worry about capitalism that exists in the real world or other places on the internet. Okay now I'm rambling...Back to the subject...

Beck, you had to pay to be in B&W. There was an entrance fee, don't forget. Yes, it was a small drop in the bucket next to the rates at Focus, but you did have to pay for that honor and exposure. David is running a business. You may not be able to afford it or like it, but it's his terms. I can only respect that since he has a solid output. Yes, I do think the inquiry letter could have mentioned a potential fee rather than getting your hopes up---but I honestly have to admit that I receive letters like these ALL the time. It's very disappointing and frustrating to a photographer when they get there hopes up, yet can't afford what they had dreamed of getting--so maybe there's a way to eliminate this confusion in the future? I'm sure it's just a matter of a sentence or two in your inquiry letter.

Again--not taking sides here. Just airing my opinion and experience. Peace out.

[dave.w]

I had no idea that Thomas Friedman ran an art gallery.

This week I sent in some work of mine and Becky's to B&W. I don't mind paying a small fee for them to look at our work. A small fee weeds out the people who are not very serious from those of us who are. However, charging such a large amount is insulting. It not only weeds out the people who are not serious, but also people, like myself, who live from check to check.

From the very beginning of photography the art community predicted that photography would kill art. The real fear was that now the common person could enter a world that was reserved for the privileged few. So other means were created to keep people out. And those that are let in will be known collectively as an 'outside artist'.

Today digital technology allows anybody to make a movie, picture or web site. This is a good thing. Of course with Net Neutrality looming over us places like this may not be around much longer. Net Neutrality, as with unreasonably high submission fees, is just another way to keep the rabble out.

But what do I know, besides The Flat Earth Gallery has a nice ring to it.

[lauraburlton]

whoah, I had not looked at their prices in a while....definately not in my price range Maybe they should offer scholarships for the down and out artist

I do have to agree with Susan for the most part though, if you want to get out there, you do have to pay to play. At least for the most part. When entering juried shows, there is generally an entrance fee or hanging fee of some sort. While these are not usually unreasonable in cost, you are taking a chance that you will not be included in the final result. At least with Focus, you know you are in once you have paid. I guess in a way it is really just paid advertising, but aimed to a very specific group.

[db]

At least with Focus, you know you are in once you have paid. I guess in a way it is really just paid advertising, but aimed to a very specific group.

Yep, that's my take on this too, although I'm sure that the Focus publisher would remind us that he won't accept anything that is not up to standard. It's in his interests to keep the quality up. Susan and others have assured us it is indeed good.

I'm not quite the purist Dave W is, so I don't have a problem with the concept. Just don't tell me it's independent. In an ideal world, the publication would make it's money from subscriptions, news stand sales and advertising, rather than having contributors pay for the actual content as well. Then I'd read it seriously.

It all comes back to the wording in the initial  approach that made me squirm. It reminds me of those phone calls from vague acquaintances, who say they'd like to speak to me about a ''business opportunity''. I was curious the first time, but now I know they have just been stiffed with a garage full of shampoo and cosmetics-  and they want to offload it into my garage. 

A good discussion about art and commerce too. As a commercial photog with artistic dreams,it raises all sorts of issues for me.

[outofcontxt]

Yup, excellent discussion here. Susan's right: art IS commerce. That's why all these competitions have entry fees and why galleries charge commissions. It's a business like any other. I don't have problems with it, for the most part. And I'm working hard to break in myself.

I, too, also heard good things about Focus as far as being a top notch publication. However, it's pretty obvious that only the privileged few could afford those fees. Ouch! But it's Mr. Spivak's business and he can certainly charge what the market will bear. However, I do have some issues with the wording of the inquiry to Becky. Mr. Spivak should have been more upfront about it. I hope that he'll take it to heart the next time he approaches the next emerging artist. Just my take...

[Ed Wenn]

I second, third and fourth the comments that this thread (while at times significantly more confrontational than we like to see at FW) has raised a lot of very interesting points and revealed some fascinating insights into the world of fine art photography - especially around 'the commercials'.

Above all else I'm incredibly thankful that we have a breadth and depth of experience on this forum that a topic such as this gets a proper airing (for the most part) with people offering up comments from their various perspectives. Thanks to everyone who contributed....there's a lot here for me to think about and the sums of money involved in breaking through into the world that Focus caters to has been a serious wake-up call for more than a few of us I'm sure, but we live and learn.

The only comment I'm able to contribute is that (as with anything), if you don't like the way it's done within 'the system' then no-one's stopping you from ploughing your own furrow. Go down the DIY route. It worked for me during my years playing in bands and if you don't want to 'pay to play' in Focus and the like then walk away and do your own thing...and if you find something that works come back and tell us how you did it.
 

[db]

The only comment I'm able to contribute is that (as with anything), if you don't like the way it's done within 'the system' then no-one's stopping you from ploughing your own furrow. Go down the DIY route. It worked for me during my years playing in bands and if you don't want to 'pay to play' in Focus and the like then walk away and do your own thing...and if you find something that works come back and tell us how you did it.
 

wrenching the thread still further from it's distant starting point...

Success is measured in different ways by each of us. To follow the music example, success may be Ed wanting to be the next Coldplay (don't be offended mate- it was a joke)  or, for me it may just be getting a regular gig at the local pub and playing to a room full of happy drunken friends every Friday night.  The mainstream may not be the best river for you. I'm happy with a quirky backwater 

Decide what success is to you, then weigh up the cost of getting there- costs in time, money, marriage, friends etc, and go from there.

[beck]

I appreciate everyone's involvement and find it a privilege to be amongst so much talent and experience with such things. To be honest, when I mentioned, "for nothing" of course I know nothing is free, and basically meant, not as much. When I initially opened the email, once again, I didn't have high expectations, knowing from before that folks will come and go with offers. Still, I guess being recognized is rewarding enough. Maybe Mr. Spivak will use more caution when approaching photographers in the future and being upfront right from the start. Hopefully he'll take something from all of this and use it wisely. For the record, he never did return my email.

I don't get my hopes up over anything anymore...if I, or, Dave and I, decide we want to submit to so and so, here and there...and the notion and effort are there, then we shall. And if we are accepted, it is appreciated. We've passed up several opportunities because we just...didn't...feel...like it. That is just who I am, and I imagine Dave to be as well. I can't tell you how many ideas I've got in my head for work, for David's involvement with that work, and maybe one day, with new alternatives, knowledge for my own darkroom, etc., it will all be recorded. Until then, it is David's magic that I can depend on to render images that I've dreamed of for a very long time. The abstruse, to obfuscate, to catch a glimpse...frozen in light.

Thanks again everyone...

[Ed Wenn]

wrenching the thread still further from it's distant starting point...

Success is measured in different ways by each of us. To follow the music example, success  may just be getting a regular gig at the local pub and playing to a room full of happy drunken friends every Friday night.  The mainstream may not be the best river for you. I'm happy with a quirky backwater 

Don, you make a good point as always and it's the one I was driving towards. BUT there are plenty of examples of people going DIY and having remarkable success by anyone's standards.

For the record, I was somewhere between the extremes of  Coldplay and the local pub....well OK, OK, I actually got nowhere near Coldplay's level of success. It's true that my bands rarely played in anything bigger than local pubs, but most of the time those pubs were different countries. Underground, backwater....and very happy. I even played a few pubs in Aus back in the day (1988) 

[db]

Hey Ed.

Yes, I've seen your band pics on the blog. The music industry is such a bitch. My guess is that even being on an international tours, your band was never exactly raking it in. I know have a few Aussie muso friends who tour North America every year, but in the off season still need a day job to pay the rent. It sucks. Where if I was shooting in a different country every week, there is a fair chance I'd be earning very good $$ and building a lifelong reputation.

With music, of all things, success and dollars may only be very distant cousins.

invite me to your reunion gig huh? Every other old-bastard band is going around again!

[This-is-damion]

who needs a stupids re union gig when you have www.liquidman.co.uk   im sure Ed will agree it was the high point of his illustrious career. ...wont you ed....ed......?

[dave.w]

I think clubs should charge bands to play.
A high end club could charge a thousand per hour of stage time, how else will poor club owners pay for lights and sound? Why should the  profit go to the band only?
Of course smaller clubs may charge less. We'll let the market figure it out. And if you don't like the new system, you can always 'DIY'.
That Cool-Aid taste funny to you yet?

[LT]

ok - I think we've done enough bashing now - all opinions are valid and have been reasonably put, but, as a humanitarian animalist-lifeist ( ) i must protest at the flogging of dead horses. 

[cpierce]

Thanks for letting this thread run on a bit, very interesting.  Just a little comment.  I assume most of us live in a free market system and there are no handouts parse.  Having a business is hard work and growing one is even harder.

 I would say that there is a place for all types of venues, buying space to get your product out there maybe the best option for some, others may have great connection in the industry, some may just have something everyone wants and that works too.  It is a matter of what you want the outcome to be.

 My experience tells me you need to research the options and time them correctly.  Sometimes being in the right place at the right time is what matters and one day the door opens, did you pay admission to enter?  One way our another you probably did.

 

[DavidS]

As far as I am aware, galleries do not charge to exhibit, they charge commission on sales, which is an entirely different thing to what you are asking for.  I think your high pricing removes a huge swathe of very talented yet not very wealthy artists from being featured in your publication which is a sad state of affairs - however, there are quite a few well known and successful magazines that will allow them space for free. And, after all, whose business is it how you run your magazine other than your own so good luck with it - I hope you do eventually manage to to get a bit more out of it than keeping the utilities bills covered. I just realised - you are the DavidS who used be a member over at APUG arent you ... small world eh?

Leon, we offer 1/6 ads for $150 an image to Full page ads that run $850 per page in 4C. Whether photographers like me or dislike me, they need me and I need them. I bend over backwards for all of my advertisers and make sure they are given as much as I can for them. I am extremely generous with my magazine...there are times where we just didn't have enough time to sell an issue and we give a free page ad away to a previous advertiser...but no one who stands to make money off of their exhibition inside of Focus magazine should get their photography exhibited for free.

The only exclusion in this policy is if a photographer's name is big enough where we can splash it on the cover and sell tens of thousands of magazines based upon their names and that's a very difficult thing to do; to find a photographer that famous.

But I do not run my business to lose money. My primary objective is to make money...and I will do everything I have to in order to do that. What that means is that I have to produce the best, top quality fine art photography magazine for collectors in existence. And I am doing that. Compare Focus side by side with B&W or photograph magazines...both magazines barely go into a subject before ending their articles. Focus magazine goes in depth and explores the subject that the article discusses in great detail. You can sit down and read an entire issue of B&W cover to cover in less than two hours. It takes me more than a day with Focus... not only because the way our articles are prepared are more interestng, but because there's nearly 400% more editorial content than B&W has.

Anyway, I digress. If a photographer wants to reach collectors, they are welcome to come to Focus. If they want to reach other photographers...well, there are other publications for that.

Oh and yes, I did used to be on APUG. I found the community over at APUG very difficult to deal with. Very absolute, rigid and closed minded to anything new other than what they are already comfortable with. My magazine from the get go accepted digital photography.... they didn't like that and chastized me on it. Also, during our first couple of issues, even after we were paying advertisers on APUG, the moderator team was extremely biased and difficult to work with. Users would act incredibily immature and irrational towards me and not get a word, however; if I responded, I would get chastized. I've found the moderator team at LF Photography much easier to deal with.

[DavidS]

Yup, excellent discussion here. Susan's right: art IS commerce. That's why all these competitions have entry fees and why galleries charge commissions. It's a business like any other. I don't have problems with it, for the most part. And I'm working hard to break in myself.

I, too, also heard good things about Focus as far as being a top notch publication. However, it's pretty obvious that only the privileged few could afford those fees. Ouch! But it's Mr. Spivak's business and he can certainly charge what the market will bear. However, I do have some issues with the wording of the inquiry to Becky. Mr. Spivak should have been more upfront about it. I hope that he'll take it to heart the next time he approaches the next emerging artist. Just my take...

Business 101 teaches you when you send out an e-mail to prospective clients, to make it as short and concise as possible. If they are interested in learning more, I believe I left contact info for her and she could contact me as other photographers did. Becky, at this juncture cannot advertise; no problem. No harm done to her and it did initiate a good conversation. I'll also say in my defense/excuse, it was very late at night and I really couldn't think of a more detailed letter to write. We have sent out other e-mails with more information... I guess I just love communicating and learning from photographers more and hearing them discuss their careers in photography with me instead of looking at everything in text. There's usually always some way we can help a photographer sell their prints to collectors.

Oh by the way, my prices were recently lowered due to an upcoming increase in overall advertising and an increase in page count from 176 to 192 for my September issue.

[Skorj]

I guess I just love communicating and learning from photographers more and hearing them discuss their careers in photography with me instead of looking at everything in text.

Please feel free then David to participate in other discussions & solicit comments here, and hopefully we can continue to be forward thinking and embrace all ideals of whatever is film-based. That is afterall our objective, and provided we do not degrade to merely trying to satisfy the masses, then all are welcome. Skj.

[LT]

Oh by the way, my prices were recently lowered due to an upcoming increase in overall advertising and an increase in page count from 176 to 192 for my September issue.

David - we are not here to provde free advertising to you so please refrain from using this forum in this way.  I will let this go on this occasion as it is sort of relevant to the dicussion, but in future please make these kind of announcements on your own website.