Outdoor photographer magazine, why it's better to get a digital version rather than a newsstand paper version.
I recently started focusing on my landscape photography, and I decided to get a subscription to Outdoor Photographer for news and reviews of equipment I may like to research for purchase at some point. I also like the idea of getting information of great locations to photograph and places to go. I went to the local Barnes & Noble to check out Outdoor Photographer magazine, which I've had a subscription a number years ago. In picking up the magazine I was very disappointed to see that the magazine had started changing the paper that they print on and decided to go with a quality which had drastically dropped. When looking at these stunning images by other photographers, the image quality was lost on poor paper and printing that Outdoor Photographer magazine now uses. I understand higher quality printing and paper costs more money but this degrades the images in their magazine.
Owning an iPad, I decided through the Zinio App, I would download the Outdoor Photographer magazine. Knowing that the images on my iPad always look great I was hoping the quality of the magazine would show through, and it does. The images look stellar and you're not left with lousy printing on lousy paper. It's unfortunate Outdoor Photographer would print on anything less than what would make their images look good. Maybe they've decided to move to a format which would do the photo's justice. However, in doing so, I think they are leaving many out who cannot afford digital equipment to read a magazine. Maybe one day everybody can afford an iPad, but in this day and age I don't think that is yet possible. So those who cannot afford to have a portable digital format are left with a meager magazine when it comes to image quality. I think they're doing a disservice to their readership, and it's unfortunate to see. On top of it, a subscription to Outdoor Photographer's paper version is more expensive than the better looking digital version. Granted you don't have that paper version which they have to print. However, the quality print is not worth the paper it's on. I like Outdoor Photographer magazine. It just saddens me that they would reduce her quality to such a low for the stunning photographs that they print on their pages.
I highly recommend if you own an iPad definitely spend less money and get the digital version of this magazine, as it's the only way you can see a quality image, in high-resolution. If you don't have iPad am sorry to say you're losing out on the beautiful images by quality experienced photographers. I would recommend writing to Outdoor Photographer and asking why they would sacrifice the quality in a photography magazine whose livelihood is based upon the images they show. As I like flipping through a magazine digital versions are not my first choice. However, I have a feeling that in the future this will be the way most publishers will go. It means less overhead and more profit. Though many may not see it this may be the beginning of the death of print in a paper version. Even so, the one constant is that change is inevitable.