Is it just me, or is Trains magazine publishing less photos than it used to?
In the past, there used to be a Photo Section, then that became some kind of section placed at the end of the magazine, then there was Photo Finish (or something like that) on the last page. And the photo contest seems to just be limping along in various incarnations.
Seeing the photo works of other railfans (and hoping to occasionally get published) was one of my favorite parts of the magazine.
I have noticed that it often comes and goes, and I think it is mostly a function of how many pictures are available. However, pictures are much more expensive to print than words.
Photographs are actually MUCH cheaper. Look at the rates in the contributor’s guidelines-- $80 for a whole page photo and per-word rates of $0.10/word. A page uses up 1000 words, or $100.00. Scanning costs about $25 per photo at current rates. The printer doesn’t care at all; no savings there. But layout, design, and editorial costs are much cheaper for a photo than to edit all that text. That’s why simple, low-budget, low-overhead magazines use lots of photos.
Not enough photos for your taste? Your tastes may or may not match the marketplace. Clearly, Trains with 110,000 paid readers (last postal statement) is finding a very large number of readers who like it enough to pay for it. CTC Board and Railroad Explorer, which are photo-heavy, have 7000 and 1000 paid readers respectively, I believe. What does that tell you?
Photos are easy and fun – I sure love seeing great photos! – but they’re not lasting. How long do you typically spend looking at a photo? Five, ten seconds tops? And how long does it take you to read a page of text? Ten minutes? If you flip through an entire magazine in 10 minutes because it’s all photos, was it worth $4.95? How about if it takes you three hours to read it and you can go back to it later to reread it? Which is more valuable to you? Do you remember a great Photo Section from the May 1997 issue? Or, do you remember a great article from the same issue? I’ve never met anyone who can recall a great Photo Section! Maybe one or two photos here or there. But every rail enthusiast I’ve ever met can list 10 articles they loved.
I see you’re also a contributor. My friend, do not confuse what readers with contributors. Readers PAY money for a magazine; they’re buyers. Contributors GET money for a magazine (or ego strokes, or both); they’re vendors. To be a successful contributor, think like a contributor, not like a reader. Magazines need readers, they pay the bills, and all editors are trying to do is please readers. If they
Heh heh. You know you are a geezer when you not only remember the News Photos but the Steam News Photos. One of the most memorable was a Union Pacific Challenger that they would bring out in the winter to melt snow over switches – and this was in 1966/67 or so!
Dave Nelson
yellowcakeflats–
Thank you so much for your excellent reply. You have given me much to think about. You showed me some angles that had not occured to me. I really appreciate it! [:D][:D]
[:)][:)] I think that there tends to be a trend in alot of magazines to reducing the amount of artwork in the magazines. I do miss the [8)][:D] photo sections of the magazine. The big [:(!][:(!] complaint [:(!][:(!] I have about the photo contest is that it seems to be more about the [V][;)] artistic[;)][V] nature of the photographs and less about the content of what is actually being photographed. A photograph of two light streaks at four in the morning may be very artistic but I haven’t a clue as to what is was. There use to be rare locomotives and unusual train make-ups in the photographs. Also there use to be interesting people in the photographs. Now it is just streaks of light or pictures of something that I can’t, even with the caption telling what it is, make out what is being photographed.[8D][8D]
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by yellowcakeflats
Photographs are actually MUCH cheaper. Look at the rates in the contributor’s guidelines-- $80 for a whole page photo and per-word rates of $0.10/word. A page uses up 1000 words, or $100.00. Scanning costs about $25 per photo at current rates. The printer doesn’t care at all; no savings there. But layout, design, and editorial costs are much cheaper for a photo than to edit all that text. That’s why simple, low-budget, low-overhead magazines use lots of photos.
Not enough photos for your taste? Your tastes may or may not match the marketplace. Clearly, Trains with 110,000 paid readers (last postal statement) is finding a very large number of readers who like it enough to pay for it. CTC Board and Railroad Explorer, which are photo-heavy, have 7000 and 1000 paid readers respectively, I believe. What does that tell you?
Photos are easy and fun – I sure love seeing great photos! – but they’re not lasting. How long do you typically spend looking at a photo? Five, ten seconds tops? And how long does it take you to read a page of text? Ten minutes? If you flip through an entire magazine in 10 minutes because it’s all photos, was it worth $4.95? How about if it takes you three hours to read it and you can go back to it later to reread it? Which is more valuable to you? Do you remember a great Photo Section from the May 1997 issue? Or, do you remember a great article from the same issue? I’ve never met anyone who can recall a great Photo Section! Maybe one or two photos here or there. But every rail enthusiast I’ve ever met can list 10 articles they loved.
I see you’re also a contributor. My friend, do not confuse what readers with contributors. Readers PAY money for a magazine; they’re buyers. Contributors GET money for a magazine (or ego strokes, or both); they’re vendors. To be a successful contributor, think like a contributor, not like a reader. Magazines need readers, they pay th
Is it just me, or is Trains magazine publishing less photos than it used to?
In the past, there used to be a Photo Section, then that became some kind of section placed at the end of the magazine, then there was Photo Finish (or something like that) on the last page. And the photo contest seems to just be limping along in various incarnations.
Seeing the photo works of other railfans (and hoping to occasionally get published) was one of my favorite parts of the magazine.
I have noticed that it often comes and goes, and I think it is mostly a function of how many pictures are available. However, pictures are much more expensive to print than words.
Photographs are actually MUCH cheaper. Look at the rates in the contributor’s guidelines-- $80 for a whole page photo and per-word rates of $0.10/word. A page uses up 1000 words, or $100.00. Scanning costs about $25 per photo at current rates. The printer doesn’t care at all; no savings there. But layout, design, and editorial costs are much cheaper for a photo than to edit all that text. That’s why simple, low-budget, low-overhead magazines use lots of photos.
Not enough photos for your taste? Your tastes may or may not match the marketplace. Clearly, Trains with 110,000 paid readers (last postal statement) is finding a very large number of readers who like it enough to pay for it. CTC Board and Railroad Explorer, which are photo-heavy, have 7000 and 1000 paid readers respectively, I believe. What does that tell you?
Photos are easy and fun – I sure love seeing great photos! – but they’re not lasting. How long do you typically spend looking at a photo? Five, ten seconds tops? And how long does it take you to read a page of text? Ten minutes? If you flip through an entire magazine in 10 minutes because it’s all photos, was it worth $4.95? How about if it takes you three hours to read it and you can go back to it later to reread it? Which is more valuable to you? Do you remember a great Photo Section from the May 1997 issue? Or, do you remember a great article from the same issue? I’ve never met anyone who can recall a great Photo Section! Maybe one or two photos here or there. But every rail enthusiast I’ve ever met can list 10 articles they loved.
I see you’re also a contributor. My friend, do not confuse what readers with contributors. Readers PAY money for a magazine; they’re buyers. Contributors GET money for a magazine (or ego strokes, or both); they’re vendors. To be a successful contributor, think like a contributor, not like a reader. Magazines need readers, they pay the bills, and all editors are trying to do is please readers. If they
Heh heh. You know you are a geezer when you not only remember the News Photos but the Steam News Photos. One of the most memorable was a Union Pacific Challenger that they would bring out in the winter to melt snow over switches – and this was in 1966/67 or so!
Dave Nelson
yellowcakeflats–
Thank you so much for your excellent reply. You have given me much to think about. You showed me some angles that had not occured to me. I really appreciate it! [:D][:D]
[:)][:)] I think that there tends to be a trend in alot of magazines to reducing the amount of artwork in the magazines. I do miss the [8)][:D] photo sections of the magazine. The big [:(!][:(!] complaint [:(!][:(!] I have about the photo contest is that it seems to be more about the [V][;)] artistic[;)][V] nature of the photographs and less about the content of what is actually being photographed. A photograph of two light streaks at four in the morning may be very artistic but I haven’t a clue as to what is was. There use to be rare locomotives and unusual train make-ups in the photographs. Also there use to be interesting people in the photographs. Now it is just streaks of light or pictures of something that I can’t, even with the caption telling what it is, make out what is being photographed.[8D][8D]
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by yellowcakeflats
Photographs are actually MUCH cheaper. Look at the rates in the contributor’s guidelines-- $80 for a whole page photo and per-word rates of $0.10/word. A page uses up 1000 words, or $100.00. Scanning costs about $25 per photo at current rates. The printer doesn’t care at all; no savings there. But layout, design, and editorial costs are much cheaper for a photo than to edit all that text. That’s why simple, low-budget, low-overhead magazines use lots of photos.
Not enough photos for your taste? Your tastes may or may not match the marketplace. Clearly, Trains with 110,000 paid readers (last postal statement) is finding a very large number of readers who like it enough to pay for it. CTC Board and Railroad Explorer, which are photo-heavy, have 7000 and 1000 paid readers respectively, I believe. What does that tell you?
Photos are easy and fun – I sure love seeing great photos! – but they’re not lasting. How long do you typically spend looking at a photo? Five, ten seconds tops? And how long does it take you to read a page of text? Ten minutes? If you flip through an entire magazine in 10 minutes because it’s all photos, was it worth $4.95? How about if it takes you three hours to read it and you can go back to it later to reread it? Which is more valuable to you? Do you remember a great Photo Section from the May 1997 issue? Or, do you remember a great article from the same issue? I’ve never met anyone who can recall a great Photo Section! Maybe one or two photos here or there. But every rail enthusiast I’ve ever met can list 10 articles they loved.
I see you’re also a contributor. My friend, do not confuse what readers with contributors. Readers PAY money for a magazine; they’re buyers. Contributors GET money for a magazine (or ego strokes, or both); they’re vendors. To be a successful contributor, think like a contributor, not like a reader. Magazines need readers, they pay th