While this is sad on a personal level for the people that worked there, the truth is, they were no longer able to provide the market what it needed. There's is hardly anyone around that is as nostalgic as me, but I draw the line at ever saying, "the good ol' days".... to me, there are no "good ol' days"... everything in the past was inferior in everyway to what exists now. Times change, people evolve, and businesses must change & evolve too or go the way of the Dodo. Popular Photography simply did not change with the new 21st century media and the 21st century consumer. As a result, they and countless other businesses are gone into the world of nostalgia.... to be thought of with reverence and remembered fondly, but ultimately, to remain in the past.
I learned a lot from the magazine and a hell of a lot more on the forums. Gocchugogi of the Canon forums may remember some of the raucous arguments about Canon and Nikon.
Gosh, glad I did not renew! I knew it was going downhill when they went to 6 issues per year, but did not expect their demise quite so soon after that!
I grew up in photography with both.
Douglas
" everything in the past was inferior in everyway to what exists now."
Yeah, the ability to raise and feed a family, pay a mortgage and buy a house on ONE salary, you could turn on your TV and not have social agendas shoved down your throat..shall I go on?
Yup, those days really sucked...
runamuck wrote:
I learned a lot from the magazine and a hell of a lot more on the forums. Gocchugogi of the Canon forums may remember some of the raucous arguments about Canon and Nikon.
When I first got into photography in the early 2000's, I too spent a lot of time in the Pop photo forums. I learned a lot and virtually met a lot of great people! And yes, I remember both you runamuck, and Gochugogi from there.
Unfortunate but not at all surprising. I'm actually surprised that it lasted as long as it did, and equally surprised that "Shutterbug" is still around, since IMHO, it's caters to even a smaller and more hobbyist type of readership.
Back in the '60s when I was learning photography, Pop Photo along with Modern Photography, which I preferred, provided information unobtainable elsewhere, and featured a good balance of editorial and how-to.
I liked Modern better, though it was absorbed into Pop Photo eventually.
Shutterbug was actually better for the larger print on the ads and they had a for sale section. It's been over a dozen years since I subscribed to any, so I can only imagine they became worse and worse. IIRC Shutterbug was not the same after the head pervert was busted.
I just renewed last fall, but they made it so cheap, why not? I guess because they were taking our money and running, that's why not!
There wasn't anything serious in that magazine for quite some time. It was mostly advertisements. I remember Modern Photography when I was a kid, but my favorite these days is Shutterbug and I subscribe to Outdoor Photographer. Both are much better than Popular Photography
It's sad to hear, but just a change of how people get their information now days. The print industry is a very difficult market currently. Hopefully the workers will find new jobs.
All the publications that have hobbyists as their readership need to sell advertising that sells gear. Only one US magazine provides me with consistent value and that is the PPA's Professional Photographer Magazine. The only hobbyist publication I still get is Outdoor Photographer. The British publications are much better but very difficult to find with the demise of the book stores.
The need for magazines like pop photo died once the Internet became mainstream. If I'm interested in a subject, I can quickly google the subject and get 50 different views on it. With the hard print, you get one view and quite often a very superficial view.
I haven't opened up a photo magazine in 10 years...see no point.
chez wrote:
The need for magazines like pop photo died once the Internet became mainstream. If I'm interested in a subject, I can quickly google the subject and get 50 different views on it. With the hard print, you get one view and quite often a very superficial view.
I haven't opened up a photo magazine in 10 years...see no point.
Much of what's on the internet that's worthwhile is based on info generated by old-fashioned media, albeit adapted to the new platforms. But that's general media. You're right to say that even as a magazine before the internet, Popular Photography didn't amount to much and it was peculiarly blind to the changes the internet brought.
