Photography magazines

I was wandering around a bookstore today and picked up an issue of Nature Photographer. Most nature photography I view in a digital format and maybe that's why the pictures seemed off to me. Nearly all of them had a painted look to them. Beautiful photos with nice light and composition but there was a big lack of detail and they almost looked like paintings instead of photos. Is this typical of when a file is turned into a magazine quality image or just processing style?

Unless it is due to low quality printing I would go with Processing style. Far too much overdone HDR and similar effects. Landscape photographers seem to be especially prone to this.

Off set printing as used in magazines is a very different method to either the Ink Jet, or Chromogenic printing processes that we are used to seeing with "normal" photographic prints. It is quite hard, and generally more expensive to get really good quality results. You only have to look at a copy of National Geographic to see what I mean. That magazine is printed on a better quality, higher weight paper than most colour magazines, which is usually the first step to better quality images. Most publishers are just not set up for Nat Geo quality printing.

Alan

NateD wrote in post #18050032
I was wandering around a bookstore today and picked up an issue of Nature Photographer. Most nature photography I view in a digital format and maybe that's why the pictures seemed off to me. Nearly all of them had a painted look to them. Beautiful photos with nice light and composition but there was a big lack of detail and they almost looked like paintings instead of photos. Is this typical of when a file is turned into a magazine quality image or just processing style?

If I am looking at the correct magazine, it is published quarterly. And I agree, the photos do look "off". While the photographs are generally very good, the particular printing process this magazine uses (and I have no idea what it is) does not seem to show them to good advantage. I want to like it more than I do. It seems that the publication budget available to them requires cutting a few corners, and I often wonder what it would do to the sales/subscription numbers if they could make the images look as good as other magazines do.

I think it is something that this magazine does differently, as so many others look so much better.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I found it interesting.

This was the issue I picked up.

Over processed.....