There had always been a variety of photo hobby magazines, but by 1960 (where my interests first focused) the major publications in the US were Popular Photography and Modern Photography, both having roots back to before WWII. Popular had the more substantial editorial content, and reference back to issues from that time would be quite educational in comparison to the technically flabby and undisciplined environment of YT today. Modern focused more on comparisons of equipment, films, etc, and the lab outlined here shows that. Both mags had to balance reviews with income from advertisers, which lead to some non-transparent policies re equipment reviews. Until after it closed in 1986, Modern's practices were not revealed, however when it ran a test where a camera or whatever failed its tests, resulting in an "unacceptable" stamp, it just buried the test and results without comment or publication. Readers were not stupid, so when Modern did not publish a test on something new, the hanging question was, had they just not gotten around to doing a test, or had they tested, and the item failed. Modern had to step over a lot of inquiries from readers seeking an answer to that issue re their preferred equipment. By comparison, Popular never met a piece of equipment or film it didn't like, and no one took them too seriously. These magazines made their money on advertising. They were concerned about subscription sales volume, but only as it impacted their advertising rates. From 1980 on, magazines were in steady decline as a medium, and Modern was the first to close. Much of their staff moved to Popular and for a time made it a more classy and relevant magazine, but it eventually declined into mediocrity. Popular stopped publication in 2017, about 25 years too late.
Thanks for the comment Randall. Just to clarify, Modern Photography didn't close until 1989. I know this because I own the last issues. After reading decades worth of material, I can say you do make a point with there being lack of a negative review, but it's pretty obvious they were making their money from advertising. I mean, besides subscriptions and newsstands how else does a magazine make its money? I ran my own magazine from 2001-2004 and I can tell you that any negative comment, even if the overwhelming majority was positive, meant they advertisers pulled out. This isn't limited to the photography industry. For review assignments, I always gave the material to the person most likely to give a positive rating. Pop and Mod Photography didn't always shy away from controversy either, heavily documenting Canon's departure from their old mount is mentioned quite a bit and they weren't afraid to publish people's outrage.
Today, we are much more confronted with advertising depended. RU-vid is a big example, we are watching a cameras vlog and ops! take this electric car publicity, or a guy selling the way to became sucefull. How I miss those magazines with their fantastic publicity pages. Even today, it's a pleasure to pick one from the shelf and just watch the pictures.
The name "W.& L.E. GURLEY" definitely rings a bell for me, for two reasons. First, at a civil war reenactment event I went to many years ago, I took a rather nice photo (on Fuji Acros) of a surveying instrument with their name printed on the side. Second, I actually went to college in Troy, NY.
0:48 Wow, I have that issue somewhere in my basement, along with a pile of Pop Photo and Outdoor Photographer from the early '80s to late '90s. What a great time to be a photog, so many fond memories.
Thank you for sharing all this! It's so fascinating to see how much effort was put into caring for and maintaing these tools .. it's a shame that the common modern approach to gear often is "fix it in post ..."
Thanks for the comment! I'm pretty sure the birth of fix it in post was born in film. The darkroom process is no stranger to making it work when the negative is less than desirable. I see what you mean though.
Pure gold! It just goes to show how sophisticated the analogue camera market was. Interesting that Pentax are currently developing a new film camera . You would expect they would call on all the old technology and go from there but I believe they are a different company just using the Pentax name so everything has to be developed from scratch. I wish them luck but it will be like climbing Everest with no training. I would imagine it would be for the Point & Shoot market only which I guess is a start. Cheers!
