Congratulations to ALL whose Models are pictured.

[mrm]

I am going to address this straight to Tom Geiger, as apparently he decided to write a post based purely on presumption.

I do attend some of these shows and I see exactly what happens there. But let me backtrack a little. What am I saying and why is it bothering me?

Well, I have been following this magazine (can't say the same about the site unfortunately) almost since its beginning. What I loved the most about it was exactly that it was a shoestring operation sticking it out to the big guy (SAE). No need to give me any benefit of the doubt. Some of you must be really clueless. So going back to this magazine been the underdog and coming up from the ground as everyone's favorite is a thing I have always admired. I am still a big fan of the magazine and far from clueless who's operation it is. I am also very well aware of how the pictures are being taken and by whom. After all, anybody who attended any contest has seen who takes the photographs and how it is done. Separate area, little light booth and a nice camera with nice lens mounted on a tripod. Then any model that after the judging had a little card {photo invitation) next to it gets taken to that photo area for the photos. Then the model club supporting the venue decides which pictures get sent to the mag for publishing. Then the mag decides which ones to publish from the ones they received. Pretty plain and simple.

And here is where I get completely lost. The same photographer who takes the pictures for certain event then posts them in a "fotki" (or such) album for public viewing, where you can order them even printed on a t-shirt. And these pictures for whatever reason look lively, sharp and authentic. With nice vibrant colors and plenty of detail to give you an idea if the model you are looking at has return throttle springs on its carbs. Yet the same pictures of the exact same photographer taken at the same time with the same equipment published in the last issue look completely different.

Also on this very forum plenty of modelers post their work and their own pictures from contests. Somehow it baffles me that these pictures taken most of the time with pocket size cameras and sometimes even phones, turn so great. And I am talking about pictures taken right on the contest table, with no special lighting, in the crowd and pretty much on the go. So what gives?

Third and last, as you said it yourself, these are pictures taken by different people, at different locations with different equipment. Well, I don't know how did it happen, but in the magazine they look like they were taken by the same person in the same conditions with the same equipment. And we all know that is not the case. So this is just one more thing that shows that the problem is not in the pictures taken. It is how they were edited, compressed, adjusted or whatever was done to them.

And no, this is not "some reason I see the need to pee all over it". Don't even try to pin this on me, like I am disrespecting all the hard work and effort put in by the clubs and their volunteers at the shows. What I am saying has nothing to do with them. It is called constructive criticism. And the "need" for it comes exactly from that I care for this magazine and I like to see it do well. Not lower its standard every year, which unfortunately has been happening ever since the man in Hawaii's health problems started.

I understand that this is run on a shoe-string budget. And because of that, I will offer for the next contest issue to do all the picture editing work or help with whatever I can. And I don't want anything in return, except to see good quality pictures. I don't even want any credit given or my name mentioned. I will just do it.

One thing I will agree with you, Tom. It is SAD. Very SAD that people are so blinded by "the kings new clothes" that they stop noticing when the Average Joes' amateur home pictures are better than the ones in a rag you paid money for. Its even sadder when on the very same magazine's site where there is plenty of material to be compared, people like you and the magazine's staff actually are trying to shift all the blame to "the volunteer that has done his very best to represent his club and their show". It's not only sad; Its a shame.

Edited April 22, 2015 by mrm

[bobthehobbyguy]

Note there is a difference between viewing a picture on your monitor and viewing it in print. The print requires a higher resolution. The low resolution picture that looks good on your monitor may not look good printed.

[johnbuzzed]

My second post: "I won't go so far as to declare that a ball was dropped, but I will say that my beater Nova never looked more... intense (and, it ain't from the wine)."

I am a friend and fellow club member of the photographer who shot my Nova, I saw the images on his camera after he took the pictures. They looked fine. That same Nova had been in another magazine some years ago; it looked fine. My post was not a critique, nor meant to "pee on" anything nor anybody. I, too, realize the publishing situation of the magazine. I merely offered my opinion of what I saw in the magazine vs the actual model, which is in a showcase up on my shelf. I was not pointing a finger; I was stating a fact. If you think that I, or anyone else in the forums, shouldn't do that, that's your prerogative.

And, frankly, if anyone is of the notion that I WAS trying to "pee on" anything or anybody- perhaps you have a rather thin skin, and need a reality check.

[Superpeterbilt]

With all this talk of peeing on magazines, I literally just peed on a "Scale Auto Enthusiast". K, bye.

[Harry P.]

The same photographer who takes the pictures for certain event then posts them in a "fotki" (or such) album for public viewing, where you can order them even printed on a t-shirt. And these pictures for whatever reason look lively, sharp and authentic. With nice vibrant colors and plenty of detail to give you an idea if the model you are looking at has return throttle springs on its carbs. Yet the same pictures of the exact same photographer taken at the same time with the same equipment published in the last issue look completely different.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between looking at a photo on a computer screen and looking at that same photo in a printed magazine,

I don't want to get too technical and lose you, but seeing a digital photo online and seeing that same photo on a printed page is not comparing apples and oranges, but comparing apples and pencil sharpeners.

The way color is reproduced digitally (like seeing a photo on a computer screen or a digital camera's viewfinder) is completely different than the way color is reproduced in print. Like I said, I don't want to bore you with the technical details, but if you want a full-blown, detailed explanation of why a photo may look different on a computer screen vs. a printed paper page, PM me.

[mrm]

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.

Edited May 1, 2015 by mrm

[jbwelda]

you know, its kind of funny. I pointed out a big "Ferarri" on the cover of the magazine one time, a few years ago, both here and in personal emails, and a couple of months later the issue with part two came out. big "Ferarri" on its cover too. draw whatever conclusions you like.

just for the record, I believe its "Ferrari".

I am afraid I have not seen the issue at hand though, I started buying the years issues at the end of the year to assure undamaged delivery. another subject for another thread.

jb