Julie Grahame, EIC of aCurator cites her “frustration with a lack of online destinations that feature full screen images” as the primary reason for founding the magazine. She’s already got Gina LeVay’s Sandhogs project and Stephen Mallon’s Subway Series among others like this one by Aperture Prize Winner Michael Corridore:
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
How very nice. Thank you Rob for this great link.
Looks great. Simple and clean. A treat these days.
Lovely.
It’s exciting to see new ventures that understand serious photography, have a developed curatorial approach and embrace the interactive space.
Thanks for sharing this Rob.
Thank you Rob!
Very nice effort. I wish her well.
Did Ms. Grahame discuss her revenue model at all? I’m not sure the free today, pay tomorrow approach is really viable. But you never know. I’d be interested in reading a more in-depth interview on rolling out this sort of publication in the current economic climate.
Thanks for this link. I wish aCurator the best of luck. I love Rob Hann’s Deserted States of America series.
I can understand the curator’s frustration with low-res images, but has it occurred to her, and the contributors that the hi-res images on her website can be screen grabbed, saved as tiffs, and then enlarged to 66mb? There is far too much theft of intellectual property on the internet today, and this seems ready-made to add to it.
@Adrienne Aurichio,
yeah and i can scan at high-res any page of any magazine i want. what’s the difference?
@marty,
Dot pattern is the difference.
@Adrienne Aurichio,
@Adrienne Aurichio,
Adrienne, bear with me. I’m a rookie photog. And I am interested in knowing more on the issue of screen-capture out of concern for my own work.
But…
it is my understanding that at 72dpi (common web dpi), and say at 900 pixels on the widest side tops (which is what acurator’s site looks like), it would be quite a crummy file even if saved as a TIFF. Am I wrong? (not being sarcastic, just plain honest-to-God curious).
I mean, I’ve up-sampled 900pix/72dpi files and they just dont go anywhere near to print anything decent at all. blurry, blotchy, and just plain really bad-quality pics are always the outcome.
While, obviously, pics can be stolen to be used on the web, it doesnt look at all from where I see it that anyone screen-grabbing a 72pi pic could print even a decent post-card size pic, say 4-5. Then you imagine that someone who actually goes to all that work and trouble would want at least an A-size high-quality pic of a fine art photograph, right?
Am I missing something?
Thanks.
marco aurelio
@marco aurelio & adrienne aurichio,
i also feel that the point of most photographs is to view them. if theyre too small to view then whats the point?
as photographers we have to learn to deal with the risks if we are serious about anyone viewing our images (and wanting to view them again)
Great stuff Rob! As usual!
Julie Great Idea, I like the fact that you have opened up an avenue to photographers that have a lot of creative work beyond the commercial or other business they pursue.
I liked the format and hope you do well with it.
Also check out http://www.trucemag.com they have been displaying photograpers works since 2007
I look forward to seeing how the site and the business plan develops.
How does the site look on iPhones and iPads?
@david,
>>How does the site look on iPhones and iPads?
Since the site is based on flash, it’s probably not so good on an iPad. I didn’t see a link to an html version.
Seems the only way to make money these days is pay for review or pay to submit. Many new ventures seem to go that way to survive. I wonder how that chimes with the discussion at sfmoma – Is Photography Over :- http://blog.sfmoma.org/ And how people feel about the whole morals of that – that many will just be exploited by their own desire to become ‘name’ photographers.
@tom francis, Thanks for that link, Tom. Wish I could attend but it looks like it’s sold out. I truly hope SFMOMA video tapes the event and puts it online.
I echo your feelings about the pay.
I may be from the old school, but I much rather flip through a magazine to see big full page bleed images and not on the web. I don’t like my images going on websites to much, because once there up now a days people just think it’s a free for all and there grabbing your images and posting them everywhere such as on there social networks and more. I think seeing a image “slutted” out on the internet looses the image credibility.
Thanks Rob for another helpful post/link
{ 1 trackback }