- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,705
of knife photography in the magazines. This will cost me but I'll say it anyway. The positive impact of good knife images is under-valued, and the negative impact of a poor image is greater than one might think. And what's true for the magazine is also true for maker web-sites.
Let the story unfold. Today I received my Knives Illustrated magazine, the December 2006 issue. Before I could jump in and read the articles I took a look at the editorial page. Quoting the editor, Bruce Voyles, "This issue was pulled together in a dozen different hotel rooms, over dial-up internet connections, high-speed access, on CDs with next-day delivery... etc." Sorry to say this Mr. Voyles but it shows!
I don't blame the makers. They have enough to do to bother to learn the secrets and techniques of quality 'product photography.' However, if you let a spouse or a friend take pictures of your knives in order to save money - beware - you're better off with a pro who will treat you in a business like manner and has a vested interest in getting their own 'best work' out there in front of readers.
I don't blame the authors as they are mainly good at writing, engaging in research and even working on location with their subject to get the story. Some writers are good photographers as well and should be sought out actively by magazine editors and paid well for submitting quality stories that include quality images.
I blame the editors who want articles and think of the pictures as an after thought. Editors set the quality bar for images and text. The December, 2006 issue of Knives Illustrated is a good example. The cover features an interesting new Spyderco magnetic locking knife but the tip of the knife is black - the result of poor lighting.
The advertisement images are generally better because these companies are quicker to employ a good graphics person who can put together an exciting visual presentation. Then come the articles. Mac Overton is promoting early holiday knife gift buying - good concept except there is nothing about the 14 cutlery items pictured that could garner a second glance.
The next story about folding knives at war in Iraq and is generally well done, including a parade of military types and support persons showing their knives which are very hard to see. The next article by Pat Casico is titled "Buck Knives' "New" Old Classics." I count 44 knives pictured, all of which look the same to me. I might've read that article in depth if the pictures had drawn me in.
Now Mike Carter writes warmly about Gil Hibben's 50th year of knife making and the attendant celebration. The first knife shown is the featured knife of the article - and the steel can't possibly be that color. A section of the same knife is redundantly shown later in the article. The five remaining photographs are of Gil Hibben himself, one features him holding the same knife we've already seen twice. This was a missed opportunity in terms of using photography to illustrate some of the significant dramatic creations he has made.
Then, thankfully along comes B.R. Hughes with a well-written, short and concise but pithy story about Burt Foster whom he calls "vastly gifted." The shop and forge pictures of Burt are excellent and total only two. The other five pictures are of some of Burt's knives with very creative backdrops. The images were the best of the rest but still lacked the level of quality commensurate with Burt's skill and reputation.
The next article was way more than I want to know about Ontario Knife Company but the pictures were a cut above so I spent some time with that article. Then comes a shop visit article about Mike Mooney. This one was well written but some irellevant pictures were included and the knife pictures ranged from good to poor. I was particularly dismayed when a pair of chef's knives my wife owns by Mike were pictured against a funky rubber mat. Here's my own picture illustrating what might have been possible.
The rest goes on and on in the same mediocre fashion. The photographer talent to do it right is out there but is not valued enough by the magazines to pay for the results. Until that balance shifts, or the internet magazines begin to strip the print magazines of their readership the situation will likely remain the same.
I'm open to being educated, corrected and enlightened if I'm off base. What do others think?
Let the story unfold. Today I received my Knives Illustrated magazine, the December 2006 issue. Before I could jump in and read the articles I took a look at the editorial page. Quoting the editor, Bruce Voyles, "This issue was pulled together in a dozen different hotel rooms, over dial-up internet connections, high-speed access, on CDs with next-day delivery... etc." Sorry to say this Mr. Voyles but it shows!
I don't blame the makers. They have enough to do to bother to learn the secrets and techniques of quality 'product photography.' However, if you let a spouse or a friend take pictures of your knives in order to save money - beware - you're better off with a pro who will treat you in a business like manner and has a vested interest in getting their own 'best work' out there in front of readers.
I don't blame the authors as they are mainly good at writing, engaging in research and even working on location with their subject to get the story. Some writers are good photographers as well and should be sought out actively by magazine editors and paid well for submitting quality stories that include quality images.
I blame the editors who want articles and think of the pictures as an after thought. Editors set the quality bar for images and text. The December, 2006 issue of Knives Illustrated is a good example. The cover features an interesting new Spyderco magnetic locking knife but the tip of the knife is black - the result of poor lighting.
The advertisement images are generally better because these companies are quicker to employ a good graphics person who can put together an exciting visual presentation. Then come the articles. Mac Overton is promoting early holiday knife gift buying - good concept except there is nothing about the 14 cutlery items pictured that could garner a second glance.
The next story about folding knives at war in Iraq and is generally well done, including a parade of military types and support persons showing their knives which are very hard to see. The next article by Pat Casico is titled "Buck Knives' "New" Old Classics." I count 44 knives pictured, all of which look the same to me. I might've read that article in depth if the pictures had drawn me in.
Now Mike Carter writes warmly about Gil Hibben's 50th year of knife making and the attendant celebration. The first knife shown is the featured knife of the article - and the steel can't possibly be that color. A section of the same knife is redundantly shown later in the article. The five remaining photographs are of Gil Hibben himself, one features him holding the same knife we've already seen twice. This was a missed opportunity in terms of using photography to illustrate some of the significant dramatic creations he has made.
Then, thankfully along comes B.R. Hughes with a well-written, short and concise but pithy story about Burt Foster whom he calls "vastly gifted." The shop and forge pictures of Burt are excellent and total only two. The other five pictures are of some of Burt's knives with very creative backdrops. The images were the best of the rest but still lacked the level of quality commensurate with Burt's skill and reputation.
The next article was way more than I want to know about Ontario Knife Company but the pictures were a cut above so I spent some time with that article. Then comes a shop visit article about Mike Mooney. This one was well written but some irellevant pictures were included and the knife pictures ranged from good to poor. I was particularly dismayed when a pair of chef's knives my wife owns by Mike were pictured against a funky rubber mat. Here's my own picture illustrating what might have been possible.
The rest goes on and on in the same mediocre fashion. The photographer talent to do it right is out there but is not valued enough by the magazines to pay for the results. Until that balance shifts, or the internet magazines begin to strip the print magazines of their readership the situation will likely remain the same.
I'm open to being educated, corrected and enlightened if I'm off base. What do others think?
)