I have to confess that the offer was so appealing that I almost went for it. But then…

I was subscribed to them once, maybe up to 2 years ago, and at the time decided not to renew my subscription for a number of reasons:

1. News way too old – By the time I actually had the opportunity to grab it and go though the news sections, chances are I would have read all about it online before and would just skip these sections entirely.

2. Uninteresting content – A couple of articles would probably grab my interest, and I would definitely enjoy admiring some of the photographic work, but in general the interesting:uninteresting ratio was just too low.

3. Advertisement everywhere – Do I need to say more? Every third page would be a full page ad, not to mention the smaller ones sprinkled everywhere. Scratch what I said above about my money not paying even for shipping, the ads pay for everything.

If i were to rip from the magazine the pages that actually interested me, the number would not be so great. I did not subscribe again.

All this got me wondering what would I enjoy in a printed photography magazine. Not news, I can get them online; not technical articles, i can definitely get them (and better ones) online; certainly not the ads, although I don’t mind them when not in exaggerated numbers.

Now, if instead we start talking about photographic studies, photographic essays and, to a large extent, photojournalism/documentary work, that I would enjoy. That I would pay to get in print. Sure, all of these are also available online, but in this case I would prefer the print. Call me old fashioned.

A number of publications like this still exist, but are getting fewer and fewer, unfortunately.

Now comes my question to you…

How much would you pay, if anything, for a print magazine, well edited and curated, showcasing quality work in the form of essays and photojournalism?

And just out of curiosity, what do you enjoy more on a photography magazine (generalist or specialized)? Leave your thoughts on the comments…

If you’re doing commercial photography in a professional manner, the answer to this question is clear: you have, to a certain degree, to follow the client’s vision.

But what if your photography is all about creativity or you don’t have a client to worry about?

I’ve had contact with photographers that could not care less about photography "rules" and would pursue their creative vision on every shot (independently if this would make them more or less attractive to others), and I’ve had contact with photographers that are thinking most about how their work is going to be perceived by others and try to make it attractive to as much people as possible, even if that means going away from the "inner" expression..

Both ways of photographing have advantages and disadvantages and the best would be if your vision is similar to the rest of the world’s.

So, my question to you is in which category do you see yourself. Are your photos mostly for yourself or are you thinking more about how others judge look at your work?

I know that you’ll probably would like for a third option – Both. But I’d like you to really be introspective and see in which of the two groups you fall the most.

In any case, this should give some interesting results…

Thanks for your participation, and if you have any comments on this, as always, please do so.