So I picked up Dec's issue of WD and man, I was appalled at the quality of the images in it, and I've noticed the same problems popping up on the web and in earlier issues. So lets rant:
I'm a professional graphic designer, and any designer working a publication should know the basics of dpi (dots per inch) and when you pull an image off the web and stretch it to fit the back of WD magazine, someone has got to know you're just going to get a nice, mario-esque pixelated image. I mean come on guys! Some basic Photoshop/InDesign knowledge is necessary to be a designer. Not only have there been an abundance of these horribly pixelated images, but also images with the contrast literally just blown out. so instead of subtle highlights, i get a white lance that just bleeds into the page of white so I can't tell what the hell is going on. I mean, in some publications this wouldn't be such an issue, but when you're trying to show your fans coverage of awesome looking minis, i mean you NEED GOOD PHOTOS. Not blown out contrast, and especially not pixelation! I mean, what on earth can i get from a pixel shot of a SM Chaplain other that "hey, that looks red" I would have put this under the White Dwarf sub-forum except for the fact that it happens on their website also. So maybe not everyone is a designer looking at the nitpicky things (random placement of barcodes on the front of issues anyone?) but even the least design-savy hobbyist wants a decent photo to admire minis, am I wrong?

WD is an advertisement. They pay as little as possible for it to maximize profit. Welcome to 2007.

I haven't really noticed that yet but I'll keep a look out.

White Dwarves are designed to make kinderling and GW can't even do that properly! Anyways white dwarfs should be trashed as they're an insult to my fireplace.......

I don't know about the picture quality. But it seems like they don't have enough pics on their website, and that they don't take pics of anything very cool

Hey,

Some basic Photoshop/InDesign knowledge is necessary to be a designer

GW's underperformance in this area is a disservice to shareholders.

you NEED GOOD PHOTOS

As the purpose of the photos is to promote products based on their looks, yes.
In this light (hur!), there's no excuse not to use the best you've got.
The frightening corollary is - that's the best they've got . . .

it happens on their website also

Worst examples are the Sneak Peeks intended to whip up customer pre-release interest.
Would it break your mother's back to crop photos to fill the java popup template size?
One Dwarf fig was a grey smudge in a frozen white wasteland.
The Tau sniper was an incomprehensible jumble of pixels, etc.

The online store pics are a close second place in the 'dismal' department, though.
As the sole advertisers of GW merch, the website and the Dwarf have to step up.


Playa

I totally agree with all the comments made, especially nillic's points.

I am a graphic designer also and too see such poor imagery puts me off. I will never pay for a white dwarf again.

Once i wanted to work for GW, now i just laugh at their incompetence.

Librarium online is my source of news, cool photos and conversions. Maybe we should donate the money to LO?

All hail LO ;Y

Damn, didn't notice that. Mainly due to the fact that I don't pay much attention to such meagre attempts of advertising ^_^

I didn't buy WD for ages now and I will not for years to come that is, until GW pull their thumbs out of their @$$es and do some REAL work then I might come back to it.
Just looking at the GW website, I do see the lazy work that they have done to promote their products. From where I'm sitting, GW isn't going to inspire a cat to eat tuna!

I don't blame GW for pumping out adverts like that, but I do see that GW has gone WAY too far by doing this. They seem to have the right mind to watch their precious company fold into itself whilst making a fat buck along the way!
Surely somthing must be said about this! the destruction of our fantastic hobby is coming closer, and they're not doing anything about it!

Sorry for my insane ranting everybody but, surely if GW makes another step like this, it could result in catastrophic reduction in profit and may well cripple GW in the long run.

This is 2007? I wonder what 2008 brings us ;)

-Kai-Itza-

I see what you mean, but what i was trying to say was

They take photos of boring things. Like the stuff they're taking a shot of fills up a tenth of the frame, and it's some stupid thing far away or stuff is too crowded

Like everything else they do, GW's writing / publications / proofreading / editing staff across the board would not be able to keep a job with me. I would literally fire them all.

Im not going to mention anything about WD content (there are enough opinions about that on LO!) but the poor pictorial quality is indicative of the basic amateurism in a lot of GW publication- particularly WD- i mean surely if your producing a professional magazine that is available in all major newsagents then you employ qualified and competent graphic designers and other professionals in the printing industry like proof readers etc. I mean how often is there a page reference in a WD that sends you to a totallyunrelated page? its obscene!