Why has the quality become so poor?

[Denbridge]

I finally had time to sit down and read the March 18 Classic layouts issue. 

I looked forward to this sine it featured layouts and modellers I have long admired.

What a disappointment. The reproduced photos are appalling. Now, I think we can all agree, that coming from the likes of Tony Wright, the originals would be superb, so the blame must firmly lay at the feet of the Publishers and printers.

Very Disappointed. I now understand why friends have said BRM is a shadow of its former self. I certainly wont buy another copy without at least looking through before purchase. 

[Colin_McLeod]

Does that require removing it from a plastic bag?

[Denbridge]

Does that require removing it from a plastic bag?

How does that make any difference? 

[Andy Y]

I finally had time to sit down and read the March 18 Classic layouts issue. 

I looked forward to this sine it featured layouts and modellers I have long admired.

What a disappointment. The reproduced photos are appalling. Now, I think we can all agree, that coming from the likes of Tony Wright, the originals would be superb, so the blame must firmly lay at the feet of the Publishers and printers.

Very Disappointed. I now understand why friends have said BRM is a shadow of its former self. I certainly wont buy another copy without at least looking through before purchase.

Someone will always be disappointed though!

There was a significant issue with the reproduction of March being over-inked. Feel free to compare my original image supplied to the office with how it may have appeared in print (although through conversations with contacts it doesn't seem to be all issues).

 

 

As explained elsewhere Tony's originals of Kendal Branch had disappeared and the images used (agreeably poor in resolution) were from electronic copies of the supplement they previously appeared in.

 

 

 

BRM is a shadow of its former self

A pretty sweeping and damning statement considering how much time and effort Phil and I, in particular, put into the issue. 

 

 

[Nickey Line]

Answering the 'why' is easy - the quality of the paper used has decreased. It is now much thinner and less glossy than in the past. The focus is now much more on digital publishing and there is a need to reduce the cost of producing the hard copy. I'm not complaining, it's a fact of life; we're lucky to still have the mag at all.

[Denbridge]

 

There was a significant issue with the reproduction of March being over-inked. Feel free to compare my original image supplied to the office with how it may have appeared in print (although through conversations with contacts it doesn't seem to be all issues).

 

Buckingham_Feature_11.jpg

 

As explained elsewhere Tony's originals of Kendal Branch had disappeared and the images used (agreeably poor in resolution) were from electronic copies of the supplement they previously appeared in.

 

A pretty sweeping and damning statement considering how much time and effort Phil and I, in particular, put into the issue. 

 

 

I'm sorry. I have no wish to put anyone down, but having just returned to the hobby after a 3+year break, I've been very disappointed. I will certainly look at issues, since I always enjoyed BRM, but, and this is a purely personal reason, I cannot justify spending £4.75 on a poorly reproduced magazine. I hope things do improve, if so I'll certainly buy BRM.

[Andy Y]

 I hope things do improve, if so I'll certainly buy BRM.

 

My subs copy of the Spring issue doesn't exhibit any of the same problems. Believe me, I'm the first to grumble if I think the images are less than flattering.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I always get the digital issues of magazines nowadays (saves on storage room!) in which the photos are superb. In fact I thought the March issue was one of the best for some time (pleased to see that there were trackplans too).

 

The quality of photo reproduction in magazines has been an issue since the 1980s at least. The paper used does make a difference, but it's possible to have poor reproduction on good paper too.

[Denbridge]

I always get the digital issues of magazines nowadays (saves on storage room!) in which the photos are superb. In fact I thought the March issue was one of the best for some time (pleased to see that there were trackplans too).

 

The quality of photo reproduction in magazines has been an issue since the 1980s at least. The paper used does make a difference, but it's possible to have poor reproduction on good paper too.

I realise that digital will always be superior. But it is sometimes nice to have a more traditional format. I travel a lot and squinting at a picture on a tablet is not for me. I do most of my reading on trains and planes. Andy has covered the problems with the March issue for which I'm grateful. It was sadly the worst I've seen in my chosen magazine subjects, though hopefully a one off

[New Haven Neil]

I actually enjoyed this issue more than any for quite some time!  Horses for courses.

[Denbridge]

I actually enjoyed this issue more than any for quite some time!  Horses for courses.

The articles were great. It was the poor reproduction that disappointed me. But Andy has answered my concerns in a fair and balanced way, so I'll say no more.

[Colin_McLeod]

Does that require removing it from a plastic bag?

 

How does that make any difference?

 

The relevance is that the OP said that he "won't buy another copy without at least looking through it before purchase" Edited March 1, 2018 by Colin_McLeod

[truffy]

The last BRM I bought off the shelf was wrapped, because of the DVD, so you can't look before you buy. Unless you're very sneaky and naughty.

[Phil Parker]

The last BRM I bought off the shelf was wrapped, because of the DVD, so you can't look before you buy. Unless you're very sneaky and naughty.

 

The DVD is glued to the cover so there's no need for a bag unless the retailer specifies it. WH Smiths and supermarket copies aren't bagged. 

[phil_sutters]

While I found many of the photos in the March edition too dark, which may be explained by the 'over-inking', the photos in the David Jenkinson article suffered from what looked like pixelation - jagged edges. However having grown up with Buckingham and Borchester in mono it was good to see coloured versions despite the quality issues. The Rowe article was delightful. So overall I was pleased to get this issue through my letterbox.

[truffy]

The DVD is glued to the cover so there's no need for a bag unless the retailer specifies it. WH Smiths and supermarket copies aren't bagged. 

 

Good enough. I got my copy from a little local newsagent, and I distinctly remember it being bagged because MR and RM weren't (but they came from WHS).

[GD]

Good enough. I got my copy from a little local newsagent, and I distinctly remember it being bagged because MR and RM weren't (but they came from WHS).

 

We should all be trying to cut down on plastic waste and magazines being bagged really shouldn't be happening anymore, same as bananas in the supermarket in plastic bags WTF

[The Stationmaster]

We should all be trying to cut down on plastic waste and magazines being bagged really shouldn't be happening anymore, same as bananas in the supermarket in plastic bags WTF

 

If you saw the little oik I saw in Tesco yesterday grabbing hold of various items of foodstuffs and his wimpish mother who could do more than say 'don't do that dear' I'd be asking for just about everything in a plastic bag.  And that was just a child, you should see the way some of the adults behave - I'd be all in favour of putting them in plastic bags.

[Mallard60022]

If you saw the little oik I saw in Tesco yesterday grabbing hold of various items of foodstuffs and his wimpish mother who could do more than say 'don't do that dear' I'd be asking for just about everything in a plastic bag.  And that was just a child, you should see the way some of the adults behave - I'd be all in favour of putting them in plastic bags.

.......especially the ones who have just been for a dump and don't wash their hands; bl##dy disgusting. 

[Jinty3f]

......or those who lick their fingers to open the plastic bag, then proceed to delve among the loose fruit and veg on the shelf. Most of it gets washed or peeled, but it still puts me off buying unpackaged produce.

[olivegreen]

.......especially the ones who have just been for a dump and don't wash their hands; bl##dy disgusting. 

Standard procedure for rather too great a proportion of the population this side of the Channel, sad to say.

[009 micro modeller]

I'd be all in favour of putting them in plastic bags.

The customers or the food items? :jester:

[The White Rabbit]

One way I get round this is grow as much as possible myself. I'm no fanatical Good Lifer but using a couple of windowsills for containers and some deep troughs outside in a sunny corner keeps us in leaf salad, spring onions and baby carrots for most of the year, with some fruit and other veg in the late summer. In terms of food miles/reduction or plastic usage it's only a gesture but it sure gets round the 'who has sneezed all over this or been handling it with mucky hands' worry. Tastes a lot better too. 

[Mallard60022]

SWMBO has an allotment...I help a bit but she does a grand job and we have a lot of veg, salad and fruit. probably the best are the Squash, some of which are the size of a new born child (minus legs and arms). They (the Squash you understand) make great soup and are wonderful in curry/stew. Rhubarb lasts all year and it is really lovely to have (say) Raspberries in February.

P

Edited July 25, 2018 by Mallard60022

[Mikkel]

Superb thread drift!