Originally Posted by Francis Daignault
Digital photography has made photos better than back when we used to pay for film, developing. Those days every exposure you snapped cost money and you could spend big bucks for a bad trip to the darkroom. Now, people take a bunch of good pictures that have no related cost, Our Migauel member takes marvelous photos that cost him nothing. My early years a lot of the magazines used to publish some real crap. Joe Brooks in a dress shirt and tie with a grip and grin of a dead fish. When I started I could see nobody would take pictures at night surfcasting. I sold SWS a cover photo of a guy at night when it never had been done. Being on the inside if the quality of support photography made articles better, than readers had to experience a better read.
Old time editors talked to writers where today you make a submission and never hear back. I queried a current SWS editor who never heard of me and did not even show me the courtesy of a refusal. Just didn't answer. I have one out with an editor now for a year. No response! Editors today, not all mind you, don't know that it is unethical to let a writer rot. So while the product is better today, the editor/writer ethic is functioning without well followed protocols. I have two editors that I love, but I have a few that won't even show me the courtesy of a rejection. And of course I have the one who kicked me out 16 years ago.
I suspect some editors just don't have the time. Maybe they are worried about getting the bills paid and pleasing advertisers.
It getting back to the point, I just don't know if readers have changed. Some mags I'll
Read a few paragraphs and shrug my shoulders like I guess readers like the tired cliches