National Geographic has changed their printing process!
Jul 2, 2022 23:42:39 #
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
Jul 3, 2022 03:28:57 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Likely, AZ Highways lowered their standards significantly.
Not too many 4x5 view camera shooters nowadays. I agree the images aren't what they used to be, but what would you have them do, quit publication?
Jul 3, 2022 06:30:16 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
[quote=robertjerl]I would wager it is in large part to save money because the great majority of their subscribers are like me - digital
Most likely cost!
Most likely cost!
Jul 3, 2022 09:01:52 #
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 worked in the paper industry for (39) years. The issues could be due to the lack of availability. Many large producers have permanently shuddered their factories in the USA. Technology has impacted the industry making it a bit of a buggy whip technology being overtaken by tablets, computers & phones. Readership could also be down putting pressure on their costs of doing business. Lighter basis weights mean less pounds to print & mail.
Jul 3, 2022 09:11:48 #
Jul 3, 2022 10:11:57 #
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
Jul 3, 2022 13:16:26 #
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.
I hear the word WOKENESSS being used in a perjorative manner, yet I have no idea of it's CONCISE meaning. Please define the word. THANKS
Jul 3, 2022 13:52:00 #
photogeneralist wrote:
I hear the word WOKENESSS being used in a perjorative manner, yet I have no idea of it's CONCISE meaning. Please define the word. THANKS
I canceled my Scientific American Magazine after decades of subscribing because they boasted in one of my last issues that they were proud of getting Biden elected. They are supposed to be a scientific magazine and not a political magazine. It sounded like they wanted to be part of the woke people who trashes anything that other people might think. Also, the magazine only published articles about how bad global warming or climate change was and no articles questioning that theory or having opposing views, which the scientific method requires. In other words, they publish articles they agree with and suppress views that they don't agree with. That's politics, not science.
Jul 3, 2022 14:57:56 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.