/ Climb Magazine

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
aberSam - on 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 - on 15 Sep 2010
In reply to aberSam:

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.
aberSam - on 15 Sep 2010
In reply to aberSam:

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 - on 15 Sep 2010
In reply to aberSam:
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 ;-)
John Rushby - on 15 Sep 2010
In reply to aberSam:

I haven't read it since the switch from papyrus.
nufkin - on 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.
aberSam - on 15 Sep 2010
In reply to aberSam:
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?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.