UKC

Climb Magazine

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Sam Edwards 15 Sep 2010
My copy has just arrived and eurgh. They've moved away from the nice matt finish and back to a glossy. Anyone else a bit disappointed?
 Adam Lincoln 15 Sep 2010
In reply to Sam Edwards:

The reason for it is photos look better in gloss. Considering both guys behind it are top photographers, i think they should know that gloss is better.
OP Sam Edwards 15 Sep 2010
In reply to Sam Edwards:

I'm not saying the photos arent better. Just the 'look and feel' of the magazine was a lot nicer when it was matt
 Simon Caldwell 15 Sep 2010
In reply to Sam Edwards:
Nobody like change.
When they introduced the matt finish, people didn't like it, now they've gone back to gloss, and people don't like it again
 Rubbishy 15 Sep 2010
In reply to Sam Edwards:

I haven't read it since the switch from papyrus.
 nufkin 15 Sep 2010
In reply to Toreador:
> (In reply to aberSam)
> Nobody like change.
> When they introduced the matt finish, people didn't like it

I liked it (aside from the smell, but they seemed to sort that out pretty quickly)

> now they've gone back to gloss, and people don't like it again

I've not read it yet, but was a bit disappointed at a quick glance. Presumably it's gone back to glossy to be a bit more outstanding and Alpinisty, so hopefully it'll be a good read still.
OP Sam Edwards 15 Sep 2010
In reply to Sam Edwards:
i loved the change to the matt. the gloss almost makes it look cheep.

And why is it that both climb and climber end up having the same stories? i can understand them both having a article on a big fist ascent or something like that, but this month they both have an article on Joe Brown. I found both articles interesting but why do they seem to have them at the same time?
New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...