A couple of weeks ago, I stopped by Samy’s Camera in Santa Barbara [Calif.] to check out their new location. After examining a new camera bag, I went over to pick up some product literature when the Spring [2005] edition of PhotoMedia caught my eye. I don’t know if it was the large format of the magazine or the eye-catching cover photo, but I pulled one off the rack for a look-see. I had never seen a copy of PhotoMedia before, but this one was going home with me, that was for sure.

I headed over to the checkout counter to pay for it, but pulled up short when I noticed it was free. I went out to my car — my wife was patiently waiting for me — and began to look over the photos of the tsunami disaster. We paged through the magazine together, and each page brought another great story or picture.

I’ve never been moved to write to a photo magazine, but I wanted to let you know I think you’re doing a heck of a good job with this publication. I subscribe to Digital Photo Pro and Popular Photography, and I receive complimentary copies of Rangefinder, Electronic Imaging (until they went under), Government AV Video and few others. From a pure content point of view, PhotoMedia is right up there with the best of them. There is more meat in this Spring issue than in most magazines four times its size. I also liked the idea of actually being able to see the cover photo without most of it being obscured by type and advertising. The photo reproduction is excellent. I don’t know all the technology behind that, but the tonal range and fine detail are evident on every page. I’m no expert on laying out a magazine, but I know a good one when I see it. Thanks for a great publication, and keep up the good work.

Dennis Fisher
Optical Systems Manager
Western Test Range
Vandenburg Air Force Base, Calif.

First, I would like you to know how much I enjoyed the landscape issue [Summer 2005]. Something intrigues me, though. I have David Muench’s book “Portrait of Utah,” published, I believe, in 1989. On page 7 of the book, there is an image of White Canyon taken at the same time as the image running on PhotoMedia’s cover. The color and contrast of the two images is remarkably different. PhotoMedia’s cover definitely has more punch and the color is flaming when compared to the book’s rendition of the nearly same image. I have been to White Canyon and know that the canyon walls do not look like the cover’s image. I am not being critical of the magazine but would love to know who boosted the color and contrast of the cover’s image; David or Marc Muench or the magazine’s editors?

I recall that a few years ago PhotoMedia ran Jack Dykinga’s photo of Coyote Canyon [Spring/Summer 2001] on the cover and the color of that image didn’t match his well-known published images of the same shot. I think both covers looked great, especially if you weren’t familiar with the places in question, but, if the magazine’s editors chose to alter the color of the images so radically, shouldn’t the viewer be told and it would interest me what the photographers had to say about the alteration.

Claire Curran
Santa Ana, Calif.

The publisher responds:

Good question! We do our best to be as true to the photographer’s intended color as possible when we reproduce their photos in PhotoMedia. There are, however, variables that influence our ultimate rendition of that color. Your comments assume there is one definitive print and/or exposure of the photo, which may not be the case. Additionally, when original (digitally scanned) RGB files are converted to CMYK for printing, there is almost always a color shift, which must be corrected. Also, in CMYK, there are various colors that are virtually unprintable and must be adjusted to approximate what the photographer had in mind. Finally, color can further alter on press, when the ink is hitting the page. This entire process of color reproduction, while extremely careful, is totally subjective — that is, no two people see color the same. You might say that all photos in PhotoMedia have been altered to some degree. In the case of David Muench’s cover photo, he actually requested that we add contrast and saturation to the color, which we did, and is what you noticed.

A couple of weeks ago, I stopped by Samy's Camera in Santa Barbara [Calif.] to check out their new location. After examining a new camera bag, I went over to pick up some product literature when the Spring [2005] edition of PhotoMedia caught my eye. I don't know if it was the large format of the magazine or the eye-catching cover photo, but I pulled one off the rack for a look-see. I had never seen a copy of PhotoMedia before, but this one was going home with me, that was for sure.

I headed over to the checkout counter to pay for it, but pulled up short when I noticed it was free. I went out to my car — my wife was patiently waiting.

After 50 years of thinking [in terms of] traditional film, I am now joining the digitized world, and it ain’t easy. I have yet to get beyond the auto setting on my newly acquired Nikon Coolpix 5000. Your article in the Fall 2003 edition of PhotoMedia, [“The Revolution Will Be Digitized (Like It or Not . . . )”] spurs me onward.

I should add that this issue is my introduction to PhotoMedia. I especially was taken with the photos and stories about the seldom-recognized heroes of the Iraq and Afghan conflict. This issue will be on my coffee table for some time to come.

Ned Porges, Century 21 North Homes Seattle

Your fall 2001 issue of PhotoMedia, entitled “Photojournalism: Telling the Story,” was superb. Given the deadline pressures and historic events of Sept. 11, you managed to pull together an exceptional issue that’s well worth keeping for years to come. The cover shot [by Ricky Flores] of firefighters raising a flag at Ground Zero the day after the World Trade Center attack was especially impressive. It offered an alternative perspective of that now iconographic image...

Journalists, like all humans, always have a choice. Judging from his letter in the Winter 2000 issue of PhotoMedia regarding the Columbine incident, Denver photojournalist Barry Staver, invoking personal reasons, deserted his profession. Instead of taking advantage of his privileged involvement with the story and approaching it in what could have been an original and poignant account, he chose to stand back and blame colleagues. It's particularly unfortunate that he chose to criticize those that photographically covered the story...