National Geographic has changed their printing process!
Jul 1, 2022 10:39:50 #
Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…
Jul 1, 2022 11:01:26 #
azted
Loc: Las Vegas, NV.
Just another example of the lowering of standards that is supposed to bring a better standard quality of living for all the world. What a load of crap! Someone has to stand up and shout "stop this degradation of of our lifestyle!" It is happening in slow steps everywhere, and often comes under the guise of "This is better for you because.................." Lets all agree to cut the bullshit and call it what it is!
Jul 1, 2022 11:06:57 #
azted wrote:
Just another example of the lowering of standards that is supposed to bring a better standard quality of living for all the world. What a load of crap! Someone has to stand up and shout "stop this degradation of of our lifestyle!" It is happening in slow steps everywhere, and often comes under the guise of "This is better for you because.................." Lets all agree to cut the bullshit and call it what it is!
What it is: reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, so the lowest won't be "offended", and continue rioting, burning and killing!
Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City
Jul 1, 2022 13:33:48 #
Jack 13088 wrote:
Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…
Well, that was an interesting rabbit hole of photo printing processes that I had never appreciated. I found this blurb from NGM. So, what can't you understand about "more luxurious"? 🤪
The redesigned National Geographic magazine includes pages that are easier to navigate and more exciting, with dynamic new sections at the front of the magazine. There is more space for stunning photography. New typefaces are adapted from styles that harken to its past, but are updated to reflect today’s sensibilities. The magazine is now printed on two new premium paper stocks, making the photographs more lush and rich, and giving the magazine itself a more luxurious feel to the hand.
Jul 1, 2022 16:45:22 #
Alphabravo2020 wrote:
Well, that was an interesting rabbit hole of photo... (show quote)
You may have hit upon something. Luxurious is in the eye of the beholder. I am more of a flannel shirt, blue jeans and sneakers kind of a guy. Not usually considered luxurious. Oh, well. The NGS doesn’t know their audience.
Jul 1, 2022 16:50:31 #
Jack 13088 wrote:
Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…
I would wager it is in large part to save money because the great majority of their subscribers are like me - digital only for many years until I dropped my subscription last year because they became too woke for me. That blurb from them about it sounds like they have now taken their "wokeness" to a new level. Smithsonian got dropped for the same reason a long time ago.
Jul 1, 2022 17:11:25 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
robertjerl wrote:
I would wager it is in large part to save money because the great majority of their subscribers are like me - digital only for many years until I dropped my subscription last year because they became too woke for me. That blurb from them about it sounds like they have now taken their "wokeness" to a new level. Smithsonian got dropped for the same reason a long time ago.
Top-tier magazines like Nat Geo, Scientific American, and others, traditionally printed on clay coated paper for best reproduction and "feel." Clay coated paper provided a smooth surface for outstanding print quality (and you could also lift images off onto transparency film, with the proper equipment). But it's expensive. And with the post offices new shenanigans, weight is everything for postage.
Jul 1, 2022 17:32:34 #
bikinkawboy
Loc: north central Missouri
Also note that quite some time ago they got rid of the clear plastic shipping wrapper. They wanted to go “green” by replacing them with paper.
Jul 1, 2022 20:32:47 #
Just Shoot Me
Loc: Ithaca, NY
So playboy had it right all the time.
There wasn't a mailman in town who didn't slip off that sleeve and have a peek at lunchtime.
This was 1967 after all.
Ron
There wasn't a mailman in town who didn't slip off that sleeve and have a peek at lunchtime.
This was 1967 after all.
Ron
Jul 2, 2022 06:42:09 #
robertjerl wrote:
I would wager it is in large part to save money because the great majority of their subscribers are like me - digital only for many years until I dropped my subscription last year because they became too woke for me. That blurb from them about it sounds like they have now taken their "wokeness" to a new level. Smithsonian got dropped for the same reason a long time ago.
Jul 2, 2022 06:57:03 #
rlv567 wrote:
What it is: reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, so the lowest won't be "offended", and continue rioting, burning and killing!
Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City
Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City
Just a Wild a** guess but I would assume the cost of printing the mag to the old standards would cause a significant increase is the price of the magazine. Unless you expect them to lose money they have two choices; 1, increase the cost and maintain the high quality or 2, cut the quality and keep the cost close to the original.
No mater what they do someone will whine and take it personal. Just about every product on the market has the same factors to contend with. With food products it's shrink the packaging and/or price increase.
Jul 2, 2022 07:45:06 #
There are three choices. 1. Increase the price and keep the same quality, 2. Decrease the quality and keep it at the same price. 3. Decrease the quality and increase the price. I see almost all companies choosing #3.
Jul 2, 2022 07:53:47 #
Jack 13088 wrote:
Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…
It seems NatGeo might have lowered the standards of what they publish. Are they reducing the standards for acceptance of photographs also?
Jul 2, 2022 08:00:26 #
Most likely it's to save money and when they can't print it any cheaper, they'll raise the price. Then you'll have what they were trying to avoid in the beginning. I dropped one of my 2 airplanes magazines because they changed the font and layout supposedly to make it more " enjoyable to read".
Jul 2, 2022 08:05:30 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.