doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Got Double Gun Journal

Somewhat damped down in this discussion but flaring prominently in a previous go round is the admonition that DGJ welcomes submissions from non-professional writers. Aside from content dear to the heart and content not so dear, I spot an article every few issues which is devoid of much other than bragging rights on a singular (in the author's opinion) collector "find". Also, devotion to pompous and awkward sentence construction makes my teeth grate together. It's imperative that I ask myself if I could do better? Probably not. Easier to spectate than to put it on the line. I really enjoyed Mr Archer's SAC series.

jack

Ed, you have made some very good suggestions for self editing. I too believe setting a work aside for a period of time is a great step. When reread it's amazing how many changes one can make to the copy. Another trick for self editing that works great is to read the copy outloud to yourself, or preferably to another person. If in ordinary speaking it is awkward then it will read that way and needs refining.

Though I have been somewhat critical of the editorial content of the DGJ, my hopes have been to improve what is already a great publication.

There is no such thing as a magazine that has something for everyone no matter how finely drawn the purpose of the magazine is. That said ,it is the exception,not the rule,for the DGJ not to have on or more article of interest for me. This last issue(Vol 19.#3) has an excellant article by Sherman Bell,another regarding the Baker SBT and the article by Nick Hahn on the Citori.For me,that come comes to $3.23 each. Where could I find such another? Or as a friend said about Canadian Club "How can they make anything so good and sell it so cheap?"

Joe,

Of the magazines I've written for, only the Canadian Journal Arms Collecting, sent back my article in layout and asked for my comments. For everything I've sent to The Double Gun Journal, the first thing I receive about it being published is an author's hot copy of the magazine!

At my work, everything written went through from two to four layers of edit and feedback, very different from DGJ.

Dave

Joe: You know of what you speak, no pun intended. I always read aloud. If a writer can't vocalize his own stuff without stuttering or getting fumble mouthed, he'd better start over. But it drives my wife nuts. First I dictate into the hand-held; then she types the stuff by transcribing my tapes; and finally she has to listen me drone on...and on...and on, while going through the usual ten to twenty re-writes as I refine and dictate over not quite satisfactory text. Reading aloud works wonders. But it's a strain on domestic tranquility. EDM

Hello
I think I got to this a little late. I didnt see what was deleated, but I feel the same way about the DGJ as I do voting. Dont complain if you dont vote. Just remember if everyone stopped writing for it becouse they were not good writers, your DGJ would get pretty thin.
Im not a writer and I know it, thats why I paid someone else to put into works. Just remember you dont get rich writing for DGJ, as its done out of love for the guns not the money, believe me.
Get out your pens and help out. A good friend of mine Allen Avanger even did an article. He dosent even own a type writer let alone a computer. He just put it on paper and sent it along with pictures in.

Look, you're getting very good deal from this publication. I mean, if this outfit went under the cost of antidepressants for some folks out there would be prohibitive.

The worst articles are by Headrick - practically undecipherable. But his photos are great - in fact guns usually look better in the photos than in real life.

The writing is not great, but that bothers me less than it used to given that I have over time begun to understand more about writers and therefore have less respect for them as a group. It seems the better you are at authoring, the worse you are at most everything else.

As for the Ballard article, it as very timely for me as I am considering ordering one and I finally was able to see a decent photo of one.

Keep in mind that Headrick was an art teacher, not an English major. When I was a start-up operation back in 1995, Bill helped me decide on a camera (Ziess-Contax), and he assured me that 35mm slides were a valid, sufficiently-large format for magazine work. The cover of my new book is a "blead," meaning the image goes to the edges of the 12 3/8 x 9 3/8 boards. The image is taken from a 35mm slide; good advice from America's numero uno gun photographer! Yet I often find his images too technically correct. Dan Cote once told me that they were "as if taken from a deep freeze," which is good for still life work, but not to the taste of those who appreciate the impressionists. As for Bill's appendant commentary...well, I really like his photography. Terry Allen's too.

In the final analysis, producing killer photos is almost as easy as the simple capture of light on an appropriate medium by using expensive equipment to establish proper high-resolution focus, plus you'll need cost-effective access to interesting guns and associated background memoribilia, coupled an artistic sense of layout and proportion, refraction, shadows, nuances of texture, highlighting...so, not surprising, DGJ pictures run the gamut of amateur-hour to top-of-the-trade, and perusing each issue of the DGJ will show glaring examples of both extrenes. Not everyone has the talent and resources of Headrick and Allen.

So whenever you see a bad picture consider it an opportunity to do better in the next issue. Pictures sell articles; really good pictures can often be a "photo-article" without associated text (except for cryptic captions). The Fall 2008 issue shows a lack of well-photographed submissions; hark back to the Spring 2004 issue for some of Terry Allen's best work, and compare to Headrick's "out of the freezer" photos; different but Great! Charlie Semner has mastered technical photography against a blue background (never use red!). Notice the images on p.53 and 65, 71 and 77 of the Spring 2004 issue; these are what I mean by "impressionist." Notice the technical prefection of Headricks work at pp. 89-90-91-93, and compare the image at p.94 to Semner's at pp. 80-81. Good stuff, but different.

Now check out the David McKay Brown ad on p.8, which really sucks. Who in their right mind would deliberately photograph an $80,000 product image out of focus and pay top $$$ for a full page ad in an "eye candy" magazine. What a turn off! And parting shot:

I don't write for Hunting & Fishing Colectibles anymore. I wrote good case-on-point stuff and submitted good slides of worthy guns and shooting memoribilia. But the editor balked. Slides cost $$$ to read into the electronic medium, thus making my high-resolution images "less valuable" than those submitted from digital cameras on disc. But some of the digital-decoys pictured in the magazine looked like they were wearing fur coats; fuzzy home vidios trumped professional work. So we went our seperate ways. Be thankful that Dan at the DGJ favors high quality when available, and hope that more will be in the offing in the future as the next generation of author/photographers work to improve their words and images. EDM

Thanks for that first-hand stuff, Ed. It's valuable for those with a hankering for publication. There's a lesson in Destry's Golden Plover gestation. The time taken shows.