IAC General Discussions
Post Reply
Cathy Poole
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:32 pm


Post by Cathy Poole »

Just a quick thought but,

Now that the Film & Video Maker Magazine has grown by 2 pages
(from 36 sides to 40 sides of paper), will the IAC assure its loyal
readers that we will be able to squeeze the next 12 issues of this
fine and wonderful magazine into the current blue magazine binder?

After all, this is an increase of 24 pages over the next 2 years.

Or, will the IAC be redesigning and selling a new style of binder
in the very near future?

Merry Christmas to you all,

Cathy Poole
Ken Wilson
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:17 pm


Post by Ken Wilson »

I have it on authority from a "reliable well-placed source" that the extra pages are a one off due to an excess of material being submitted and the next issue will revert back to "normal".
Cathy Poole
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:32 pm


Post by Cathy Poole »

Maybe we could make the FVM magazine even smaller.

It’s really quite simple.

Please take a careful look at the December 2019 issue.

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 6.
Pano view Action Cam

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 8.
Phone as a view-finder

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 18.
Behind the scenes set up 2

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 22.
Credit: Alan Atkinson

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 24.
The size is absolutely ridiculous

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 25.
Bedgebury Pinetum
Now this one is also ludicrously large

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 26.
Great Spotted Woodpecker
Did this really have to be so enormous?

Reducing the size of the photograph on page 31.
Samyang mounted on Sony FS700
Did it really have to stretch across two columns?

Reducing the size of most of the photographs in
future issues of FVM would improve, and finally
bring this fine magazine into the 21st century.

Please let me know what you think.

A Merry Christmas to you all.

Cathy Poole
User avatar
Posts: 1128
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Surrey


Post by TimStannard »

Yes, indeed we could make the photos smaller, but why would we (other than to reduce space in the magazine) and why would this bring us into the 21st century?
If it was up for discussion I'd argue precisely the opposite!

1) I find the photos filling the column-width of the new three colunm format, other than portaits rather small. Look at the pictures on p29. I can't make out any of the people in the group shot (column 1), the screen grab (column 2) is too small to make out. The other two work fine as one is just a random crowd shot and we can see a bloke in a stream.

2) It's a magazine for film makers and it necessarily includes reviews of equipment. It is entirely appropriate that large images of the equipment under review, either as beauty shots or in use, are made available to examination by potential purchasers.

3) As 30%-70% of what we produce as film makers is visual (OK in some case it's 100%) it is again entirely appropriate that a magazine dedicated to our passion/hobby/pastime should include nice big good quality photos (such as the woodpecker)..

You also have to considerthe layout of the magazine. Sizes of the various elements have to be adjusted so that the text fits nicely onto a page and/or splits nicely across, sometimes a picture might be larger than is strictly required in order to avoid the first paragraph of the following article beginning at the bottom of a page.
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
User avatar
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium


Post by Willy »

I agree with Tim. I appreciate all criticism. I am used to criticism. In our club we criticize movies made by friends all the time, but in a very constructive way. Thanks to it we can improve our films. But now your criticism about our Film and Video Magazine, Cathy. I wonder if you have read the articles. "The Great Spotted Woodpecker"... You find the picture ludicrous large! Imagine that the picture would have been smaller... In my documentary I show the great spotted woodpecker in close up. You can see every detail. I am very proud that I could take that picture. Did you ever film such a bird, Cathy? I am sure that many readers would like to know how I have filmed it. From a hiding place in a wood built by my neighbour. Thanks to him the bird is large in my film. A large photograph in a magazine attracts people to read the article. "Bedgebury Pinetum"... You can discuss about the size of it... But imagine it would be smaller... Thanks to its size you can see that this wood is enormously extensive and sometimes it's even difficult to find your way in this nature reserve. I am also happy that Tom Hardwick's photographs and other ones are bigger in the magazine. Congratulations to our friend who is responsible for the lay-out. I am a foreigner, but I also read English newspapers. I don't mean tabloids. Sometimes the photographs are larger than the articles. I like that.
Willy Van der Linden
Michael Slowe
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm


Post by Michael Slowe »

Sorry Cathy, I'm with the other two on this. Visuals, in all things (except radio) are prime. I appreciate your urge to "update" the magazine, but with smaller pictures?
User avatar
Jameela M Boardman
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:41 am
Location: Lancashire


Post by Jameela M Boardman »

I also agree with Tim, pictures are a valuable asset, and it is wasting them by reproducing the submitted images too small.

...In the upcoming edition of the magazine, I had 11 good high resolution pictures sent to me just for the Northern News page, but with great sadness I had to choose just 4 -- Now I await to see how many there was actually space for, and at what size.

Pictures bring stories to life and make interesting for other people. I wish the FVM magazine could be expanded to say 48 pages by using larger pictures, and produced monthly (12 editions per year). Also, I think it should be on-sale to non-members.

It is a matter of attitude... Are we looking to save money and keep making reductions, resigned to the fact that the IAC is in managed decline? End of life plan etc.
Or do we fight back, and bring the IAC into the 21 century, making ourselves attractive to a new membership?

The choice is ours!
tom hardwick
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am


Post by tom hardwick »

I'm with Tim, I'd vote for exactly the I'd have even bigger photos.
Go blindfolded up to the magazine section in your local supermarket and pick up any magazine you like. Remove blindfold. Flip pages. Huge photos. Words that seep into them. Colours and fonts that show commercial imagination. A layout artist at work.

I wince when I think of the photographic time and Photoshop effort that goes into making my article photos look well lit, clear and good, only to see them printed in FVM one third of a page wide.

The readership is ageing rapidly and I've argued for a bigger font as well as bigger images, as when they're too small then they're too small. It's not like the digital SoCo news where you can zoom in with ease; FVM is an ancient paper magazine and very WYSIWYG.
ned c
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA


Post by ned c »

Herein lies a problem with paper magazines. On-line versions have the opportunity to resize the pictures for viewing and in most cases for saving. There are also workable links to videos and other on-line sources; I believe an essential part of learning is being able to view other people's work. The Australian newsletter is a good example of a well produced on-line magazine. The IAC magazine plays too big a part in the activities of the Institute consuming a large part of the income; BIAFF is where the future lies and resources should be allocated to it.

ned c
Post Reply