Phil Monahan
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Morsie,
Would need to be flopped, obviously. It’s a beautiful photo, but not right for a cover because the fish is angled away from the viewer, and thus the eye is drawn to the hand, rather than the fish’s head.
Because American Angler doesn’t have the word “fly” in its name, the cover photo need to get the idea of fly-fishing across, as well, so I like to have a fly or at least a fly rod in the image.
Thanks a lot,
Phil
One of the real bummers for the magazine biz in recent years has been the consolidation of distributors. There used to be dozens of companies stocking throughout the country, but there are now just a handful of companies responsible for stocking every newsstand in the country. As such, they go for economies of scale, which leaves small enthusiast magazines like ours in a tough place.
Here’s a quote from a New York Times article about the largest magazine distributor, Anderson:
”In order to recover our profitability we had two choices,” Mr. Anderson said. “We were not able to increase our gross margins, so we had to decrease our operating expenses.”This, he said, forced him to stop sending trucks to smaller retailers, like craft stores and out-of-the-way general stores.
That’s why you can’t find ff mags in as many small shops as you once could.
P.J. don’t knock yourself out. I was just hoping for some examples of the things you criticized. Mostly, I’m interested because I think any feedback is good feedback. I don’t want to cast aspersions on my competition, either.
Thanks,
Phil
Ethan,
The style you’re referring to was pioneered by the Rodale magazines (Men’s Health, Scuba Diving, Backpacker, etc.) in the late 90s. They called it–believe it or not–“chunk journalism.” The theory was that readers don’t want to read long articles, so you must offer them many smaller chunks, which create “multiple entry points,” where they can quickly read something and move on. I’m not a fan, either.
Phil
That’s fascinating, P.J., on account of American Angler has never run a “political hit piece” of any kind. I agree with your assertion that a fly-fishing magazine is not a place for political discussion.
Also, we do not include product names anywhere in our articles unless a specific product is vital to a particular technique (usually fly lines). We do have a column called “Gear I Love,” in which actual anglers talk about their favorite products. That is open to anyone, and the products are not chosen by anyone but the author.
That why I asked for specifics and all….
My tongue is killing me right now because I’m biting it so hard. One of the remarkable things I notice about this thread is a lack of examples. Each person complains about a litany of things “ff mags” do poorly, or wrong, or unethically. I don’t recognize these things in any of the national fly-fishing magazines. So I’m curious to know which ones you’re talking about.
Phil
Sorry to have found this thread so late, but Chris, I hope that you’re aware of Schullery’s “History” column in almost every issue of American Angler, one of the “mainstream magazines.”
Phil
Am editur of a flyfishn’ magazeen. I got here via a stint at Outdoor Life, which is, sadly, based in New York City.
I live in southwestern Vermont, just a few long golf drives from the Battenkill, which I now–against my better judgment–consider my home water. No dogs, but I have a lovely wife, a 5-year-old boy, and a 3-year-old girl, who take up much of my time. My son got his first fly rod this year: a 4.5-foot custom-made fiberglass beauty.
I am also a proud ex-graduate student, who completed all but the dissertation for a PhD in English, which is why I devote much of my energy to trying to convince Lauren to GET OUT NOW WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
Like everyone else, I have a blog: http://tinyurl.com/aablog
If you’ve ever looked at the Japanese fly-fishing magazines, you’ll see that they do a lot of this kind of photography, but they use tiny spotlights (don’t know the technical term for these) to pick out the important details of the fly. The effect is cool when it’s done right. You’ve got a combination of depth and shadows and cool composition, but every part if of the fly is sharp and visible.
Phil
Actually, New Zealand ended up NOT banning felt for 2009. You can find out why here: http://tinyurl.com/6enzd4
Phil
Thanks to those who sent stuff. I comb through it all on Monday.
One clarification, though. When I say that I “didn’t get what I was looking for,” that doesn’t mean that the shots I received weren’t great. Many a fantastic photo doesn’t work for a feature-story layout for a variety of reasons. So I didn’t mean to imply that the images weren’t up to snuff. Some were fantastic. It’s just that they didn’t work for the layout, the story itself, or for the editorial mix of the whole issue.
Thanks,
Phil
Thanks, guys. Strangely enough, after much fruitless effort, I was simply absent-mindedly fiddling with them and they came apart like magic. Perhaps I was trying TOO hard.
P
Last Beavers were made in ’67, I think, and there were fewer than 2,000 ever made. At the first lodge I worked at in AK, we had a 1948 and a 1954, both on floats, and they were in pristine condition. Beavers are so valuable as bush planes, every little part is maintained, rebuilt, and treated well. At the last lodge I worked, a brand new pilot totalled a Beaver on his very first flight, crash-landing on the tundra above Moraine Creek. A sad, sad day. No one was hurt, but the owner had to sell the plane for pennies on the dollar to the company that salvaged it.
Phil
Think about booking a female guide from Reel Women http://www.reel-women.com/ to float the South Fork. Your wife will love getting instruction from another woman, and you can sit in the back and fish your ass off all day without worrying for a second how your wife is doing.
Phil
Let me add that we’re always looking for great Table of Contents shots, as well. That’s a spread photo with some good solid or dark background areas for the type. Chad’s image from the Jul/Aug issue is a good example: cool image, compelling subject, plenty of room for type.
Thanks,
Phil
John,
We editors are terrible correspondents, for the most part. Your best bet is to follow up after a few weeks. Then follow up again. Folks are always apologizing for “bugging” me, but it really helps to be reminded of what’s been sent to me. I make American Angler pretty much by myself, and I don’t have a secretary. That means it’s not unusual for stuff to fall through the cracks. I don’t want to leave anyone hanging, so I’m appreciative when folks write or call to remind me to address their submissions.
Phil
I think that the reason most people object to ultralight fly rods is that, in the hands of the wrong angler, such a small rod leads to greater fish mortality. When I was a guide in Montana in 1994, I remember several guys trying to get into the Orvis “1-weight Club” by catching big fish on their tiny rods. Many of those fish were played to death because the anglers did not have the skills to land the fish quickly on such light tackle.
Tiny rods are great fun, but only used in appropriate angling situations by fly fishers who know that they are doing.
I can’t tell you how painful it is to stand there and watch a sport kill an 18-inch wild cutthroat by dragging it back and forth across the river a dozen times–all in the service of the angler’s vanity.
Phil
“Just curious how people here feel about young authors selling out your favorite trout water just to get their name in print? “
Does anyone have a good example of this occurring? Sometimes I think this argument is based on a straw man.
In our latest issue, we highlight the St. Joe, which offers 45 miles of river or something, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Obviously, neither of these constitutes hotspotting, but where, exactly, is the line?
Phil
Carter said: “it’s different looking, big ups to AA for running it.”
I’ll take the “big ups” for publishing the shot (although Chad, of course, deserves all the credit for creating it) and let you guys know that we’re always looking for different views of the sport. Don’t be afraid to submit something that you might think is too “out there.”
The Table of Contents spread in every issue demands an arresting, interesting, or simply gorgeous horizontal image. They’re hard to find. I was very pleased to stumble on this image on Chad’s site. Rest assured that I’ll periodically troll through all y’all’s galleries looking for good stuff.
Thanks,
Phil
John,
I would argue that an editor has no right to anything of yours until he decides to publish it and tell you that.
We editors are always under the gun, and some guys want a collection of hi-res images that they can turn to at the last minute. But “at the last minute” is where decisions can be made that result in problems for you with other editors.
But 200 photos should NEVER be in limbo.
This might be the best reason NOT to give out hi res images and to keep your photo collection Web based.
Phil