Оhhhh, I see now….So I was clueless about where the pictures came from. Then the tune changed to "pissing on someone's effort". Now I don't understand "the difference between looking at a photo on a computer screen and looking at that same photo in a printed magazine". You still remember the fact that the same pictures were published in your own previous issues and in other magazines, right? Yet they look far worse in the last issue. But I don't want to compare apples to oranges, because it would be unfair to compare a shoestring-budget-magazine to a publication with much greater budget. So lets leave the competition out of it.
Let's assume I don't know jack about photography, printing or anything related. So just plain common sense. If a picture gets - let's say darker, when published, then bright orange, pink and red, would look darker orange, pink and red. Well, then how come Red, Bright orange and Pink (and most on here know very well, what unpainted pink plastic in the old japanese kits looks like) Look pretty much the same color in the last issue? And the pictures used are from the same person, with same equipment, at the same show, taken at the same time. MAybe there is some black magic that I am totally clueless about .
This is going to be my last post in this thread. But let me leave you with this……Take these three issues and compare them.
I am not even going to ask you to go any further back. Look at the pictures in them and tell yourselves in the mirror, that the quality is not on a decline. Don't tell me. Don't write it on here. Go ahead and convince yourselves that besides technology getting better faster than it takes you to release the next issue, besides growing your following (meaning growing your sales and profit) you have kept the quality of the rag and the pictures in it.
P.S. My offer to help pro bono with what I can still stands by the way.