I still hate the new Arrivee design

[Charlie Polecat]

I think there's an optimal asterisk-to-letters ratio that it fell on the wrong side of?

Maybe "....of which it fell on the wrong side" ? 

[citoyen]

I don't really know what the professionals do, to visualise what is essentially a CMYK process on an RGB monitor.

We used to get Cromalin proofs, run off from a press-quality printer. But those printers are extremely expensive and the proofs cost upwards of £6 a sheet, so that's no longer commercially viable.

It's also time-consuming - if you don't have a Cromalin printer in-house, you have to send the pages off to the printer and wait for the proofs to be couriered back to you. Then go through the process again if the page requires corrections. And even if you do have a Cromalin printer in-house, you may find yourself at the back of a long queue when several titles are all going to press on the same day.

We also used to have the tech guys come round regularly to calibrate our monitors, but I don't know how much of a benefit that was. Colour correction was never my department anyway.

[Ian H]

I think there's an optimal asterisk-to-letters ratio that it fell on the wrong side of?

Maybe "....of which it fell on the wrong side" ? 

Bloody Americans, coming over here, correcting our English...

[L CC]

I think there's an optimal asterisk-to-letters ratio that it fell on the wrong side of?

Maybe "....of which it fell on the wrong side" ? 

Shame you messed up the quoting.

If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least do it accurately. 

[Charlie Polecat]

Bloody Americans, coming over here, correcting our English...

To whom are you referring?

BTW, I believe it should be: "Americans' "

[Hot Flatus]

Americans' what?

[Ian H]

Americans' what?

People can be quite possessive about their language.

[jsabine]

Bloody Americans, coming over here, correcting our English...

To whom are you referring?

To whom is who referring?

(Hint: if you retain the attributions which are automatically inserted by the forum software, viz, the author and link to the post you have quoted, it makes it a fuck of a sight easier to follow what you're saying. Deliberately deleting them seems a little, um, contrary.)

[Jaded]

I don't really know what the professionals do, to visualise what is essentially a CMYK process on an RGB monitor.

We used to get Cromalin proofs, run off from a press-quality printer. But those printers are extremely expensive and the proofs cost upwards of £6 a sheet, so that's no longer commercially viable.

It's also time-consuming - if you don't have a Cromalin printer in-house, you have to send the pages off to the printer and wait for the proofs to be couriered back to you. Then go through the process again if the page requires corrections. And even if you do have a Cromalin printer in-house, you may find yourself at the back of a long queue when several titles are all going to press on the same day.

We also used to have the tech guys come round regularly to calibrate our monitors, but I don't know how much of a benefit that was. Colour correction was never my department anyway.

I’d say it’s less of wrong colour profiles and more of wrong shutter speeds.

[Ian H]

I’d say it’s less of wrong colour profiles and more of wrong shutter speeds.

Phone pics by cyclists on the move. 

[citoyen]

I’d say it’s less of wrong colour profiles and more of wrong shutter speeds.

Most contributors are not professional writers, as noted upthread. Nor are they professional photographers.

That they keep contributing is the most important thing.

[Jaded]

Yes, that’s a given. But the words are similar to the past and the photos aren’t. I think Ian H makes a key point, probably the type of camera (and more contributors with them) than anything else.

[D.A.L.E.]

I've took plenty of photos with my phone on the move, that's a piss poor excuse. I just wouldn't dream of sharing, nevermind submitting to a magazine, a blurred or poor quality photo. Quality control, innit.

[Delph Cyclist]

(it's one of those words I never know how to spell. I'm jenrally an eggcellent spelluh, but have a few glaring blindspots. And that, sadly, is one of them    )

It is actually easy to remember once someone points out that it has two wheels like a bicycle: pelOtOn...

So if I see Jim Hopper, Edwin Hargraves and Mark Gray on their trikes, that's a pOlOtOn?

[jsabine]

(it's one of those words I never know how to spell. I'm jenrally an eggcellent spelluh, but have a few glaring blindspots. And that, sadly, is one of them    )

It is actually easy to remember once someone points out that it has two wheels like a bicycle: pelOtOn...

So if I see Jim Hopper, Edwin Hargraves and Mark Gray on their trikes, that's a pOlOtOn?

Do they have mallets with them?

[citoyen]

Quality control, innit.

You should see the ones that don't get used...

[Phil W]

Or for a group of laid back riders you could have a recumbOtrOn.

[Phil W]

Doesn't everyone carry their SLR, a range of lenses, programmable external flash, lens filters, a tripod, and a remote release with them on audaxes? Bloody amateurs!

[D.A.L.E.]

Quality control, innit.

You should see the ones that don't get used...

That's what terrifies me.

[D.A.L.E.]

Doesn't everyone carry their SLR, a range of lenses, programmable external flash, lens filters, a tripod, and a remote release with them on audaxes? Bloody amateurs!

A decent mirrorless camera and natural light will do.

[quixoticgeek]

Doesn't everyone carry their SLR, a range of lenses, programmable external flash, lens filters, a tripod, and a remote release with them on audaxes? Bloody amateurs!

Ah, so Ivo OTP has shown you his packing for an Audax then ? :p

J

[Ian H]

While quality is important, newsworthiness or reader-interest are also considerations. 

[Charlie Polecat]

That is quite true, the question though is what makes a story newsworthy enough to appear in a cycling club's magazine. If a story is compelling enough, it could be scratched out on any old piece of paper and be avidly read.

For me, I'm just not interested in rider stories unless there is an aspect to them that lifts my spirits in reading them, and "I did this", and "I did that" just doesn't fit the requirements.

I can readily see there is a difficulty for editors though, who knows what the reader wants to read unless there is feed-back of the content and the editors are willing (and have the time, recognising the editors of the fluttering ribbon magazine are volunteers) to take that on-board?

[hellymedic]

I’d say it’s less of wrong colour profiles and more of wrong shutter speeds.

Most contributors are not professional writers, as noted upthread. Nor are they professional photographers.

That they keep contributing is the most important thing.

This.
In spades.

Picky spoilt brats seem to be criticising a magazine written by volunteers, edited by enthusiasts, that they receive for scant expense.

I like Arrivée. It's not perfect; nor are professionally produced things I see.

Let's not forget it is mostly written by and for our friends.

[Phil W]

Doesn't everyone carry their SLR, a range of lenses, programmable external flash, lens filters, a tripod, and a remote release with them on audaxes? Bloody amateurs!

A decent mirrorless camera and natural light will do.

That is all washed out, looks like the camera used struggled with the dynamic range, got anything better?

But this kind of illustrates the point.  Riders submit the photos they have, to accompany their articles.  They may not be the best but that does not matter.  They have submitted them and taken the trouble to write an article.  I don't sit here passing judgement.