Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the re launch of the White Dwarf i bought the first few issues but i noticed some things.
When i was a kid i could "read" them 100 times over, i mostly just flipped through them looking at the pictures and reading some thing here and there.
I am talking about the late 90s and early 2000s
Eventually i took a break from the hobby in the late 2000s.

With the modern White Dwarf i do not enjoy looking at them as much as i used too. They just sit in the shelf.
What i noticed is that the photography of the models changed dramatically since old times.
I looked at some old magazines to try to see when this change happened.
It was from White Dwarf 392 september 2012 to White Dwarf #393 2012 October.

It changed from clear bright pictures with neutral light:


Too flashy backgrounds, high contrast with dark shadows and extra red light that does not showcase the paint job:



Does anybody agree with me?

-

That is the actual release photo for maulerfield in White Dwarf #393 2012 October.

-

I suspect for that particular photo they were trying to obfuscate a particularly fugly model.

Yep that is true, they toned it down a bit for those.
But still. It feels overall different. I feel like the photos overall in the magazine are much more busy or something? Like it takes longer time to figure out what i am looking at. Nobody agrees with me?
Maybe i am outdated

-

"Old" White Dwarf mainly just had studio pictures of the miniatures, either placed on the normal green flocked table they ran most of their games on - or on the faded blue/grey background bit.

Personally I don't think I care either way.

Maybe ... when you were a kid ... you were looking for, and valuing different things....

I think I enjoyed the "old" (your year may vary) mags more, but the photography is significantly better now, technically.

Wait, your example of the "new" style is from 2012? Four years ago?

In the latest White Dwarfs, the photography is pretty clean, no extranious lighting effects.

I took that example because at that time is when overall the photos changed. Because they got a new photographer. Actually the same guy who works there now with the same style in my opinion.
In my opinion there is still a lot of atmospheric shots with effects compared to before the change. But yes, not all the shots.
My preference was for the older style and it was interesting to see that not many agreed with me.

I've disliked their photography for a while now. All those fake atmospheric lighting/backdrops/fog with overcrowding.

Personally I'd rather see proper game table shots.

Also ironic that White Dwarf even prints guidance for readers photos which states 'always use a white background'.
I much prefer the white backgrounds. Wish they'd take their own advice sometimes.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
I've disliked their photography for a while now. All those fake atmospheric lighting/backdrops/fog with overcrowding.

Personally I'd rather see proper game table shots.

Also ironic that White Dwarf even prints guidance for readers photos which states 'always use a white background'.
I much prefer the white backgrounds. Wish they'd take their own advice sometimes.

I like simpler photos, so agree. I want to see the handmade and the evidence of the gamer having created something. These superclean super "atmospheric" are a bit too clinical for my liking. But that's what the market must like, so I'm aware that's a minority view.

I like the "diorama" shots, but I wish they'd do them like they used to, and obscure the bases. They really spoil the effect.

I like the Forge World IA and HH books best for diorama + Model pictures and gak.

They're crazy good with smoke effects, MS Paint, and instagram filters.

Just gonna throw it out there that if you guys thing the release photos/box art are of just painting, i got some bad new for you.

Most box art is shopped in some way.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Just gonna throw it out there that if you guys thing the release photos/box art are of just painting, i got some bad new for you.

Most box art is shopped in some way.

I am not 100% sure what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that the paint jobs on the boxes have been touched up with photoshop or other techniques?

Agreed. I would be surprised if they weren't.

The only aspect of WD photography I miss is all the cool terrain they used to have. Now it's just "Buy all our playsets and toys!", where everything in every photo is something they sell.

That mentality is starting to infest the artwork as well, the last vestige of creative freedom, where even the pictures just ape the miniatures.

I have some old "Make your own terrain!" Articles and they were cool.

The new boards may all be made from GW kits, but I still think there's some good creativity there. For example, the new Kill Team board at Warhammer World, or the board used in the recent 40k battle report. Sure it's all Cities of Death parts, but it shows you can do a lot more than simply make a couple of ruined corners.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... but it shows you can do a lot more than simply make a couple of ruined corners.

When you have unlimited access to CoD bitz, that is.

I love the CoD kits. I have more of them than I know what to do with, and even more left to build after all these years, but it's the damned things beneath them - that blasted Realm of Battle Board - that gets my ire. Every photograph, every battle report, it's the same tiles. The same hill. It's so anti-creativity.

Perhaps. Mind you, since all those plastic kits were released, the tables I actually play on - not the ones I imagine, or see in magazines or whatever - are vastly superior to the ones I played on before.

I still miss the 2nd edition bulbous plants with red spines, though.