National geographic photographs

[Dom Tuk]

Does any one else find it annoying when a photograph in National Geographic magazine is spread over two pages and with the way the magazine is bound there is lack of continuity with the photograph. Also there seems to be a over reliance on stylized pictures like night shots with car light trails, strange angles with distorted faces. The writing is abysmal these days too. Any thoughts

[jno]

seems possible - though not easy - to force the magazine to lie open flat. They pride themselves on their photos so I suppose they'll want to use them as big as possible, though I agree it makes them harder to read, thus missing the point. The writing seems fine to me, nowhere near the abyss.

[mimififi]

Drives me round the bend. I'm sure a year or two ago, when they had a particularly impressive piece of Photography, it would 9/10 times be on a fold out sheet. Now they just bang it together poorly across a double page as you said. It is really difficult to get the most out of it.

Also, I think they have changed the ink or the paper or something to what the previously used. I find it more and more difficult to see the whole page without some of the page being in 'shine' so that you can't see it, espcially under artificial light. It is just way too reflective.

As for the writing, I think sometimes they have more apologies in their magazines about previous stories/photos than new stories/photos. I have been a subscriber for a while and I am thinking about stopping now as I feel like I'm reading the same old same old. I feel like they are repeating/revamping previous stories with only 1 or 2 new features, just to bulk it out.

I'm thinking of changing to Geographic magazine if it is still going which is a UK based one, but I haven't looked yet.

But yeah, basically, getting a bit dissappointed with the whole NG. Even if I do get a free map now and again.

[Dom Tuk]

mimififi...you are spot on with the reflective paper. I had forgotten that that was one of my gripes. Also the content has been downhill for a while. remember the big banner front page....'WAS DARWIN WRONG' implying that they had found out something fantastic to prove him wrong and in there was nothing worth reading about as they just went to say what textbooks have been saying all along. Yeah the maps are the only redeeming feature.

[mimififi]

I DO remember that Darwin article, and yes it was pointless and frankly 'flogging a dead horse'.

The only article I have found remotely interesting of late, was the one about the Titanic; even that is being generous as I found lots of their points rather obvious. They ran an ok one a few months back about the Sun and my kids liked that, but mainly because of the cool pirtures of the sun spots etc. But of course, it was difficult to see because of the flippin reflection.

I am also still irritated by the article they ran last year showing photos of tribesmen who had supposedly hunted elephants as part of the initiation into manhood. They then had to run an apology as the pictures were completely fabricated and the elephants had not been hunted by them and their darts at all. The were pHotographic lies.....You would think a mag as prestigious as NG would check all articles. It only goes to show that they have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for interesting/inspirational journalism for some time.

I think it is time to move my subscription on....:-(

(I thought I was the only 20 something that subscribed to NG - I'm glad I'm wrong!!! :-)

[Dom Tuk]

I started out when i was a twenty something...its been 20 years now.