A few years back when film was still the main format submitted to magazines the company I art direct for had the magazine dimensions set at 8x10.5". Now with digital images being 98% of our magazine I am finding my self cropping near 1 inch off the images. Is creating a magazine at 8x12" too skinny or too expensive? What are your thoughts?
It all depends upon the parent sheet which your printer is using. If you have a printer lined up I would talk to them about this new dimension and tell them your concerns. It could be that the parent sheet they are using would allow for 8x12 and might even result in less waste.
Could have to do with film format vs digital image ratio(s). 8*10.5 inch almost corresponds with 4 by 5 film (there even is a film format 8 by 10 inches). Digital camera’s (esp r SLR’s) have sensors that correspond with 24*36 mm film format, most of them also can deliver High Def like ratio’s that are 'thinner'. As a lot of image content is used for the new media these modern image ratio’s gain ground.
Re format: I like the squarer format better. Also a consideration: spreads look better.
. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO
The 8x10" format was chosen to reduce costs after publishers learned that they could sell magazines with a catchy photo and type than with a large format and illustrated covers. IIRC magazines started shrinking in the late 1960s, and by the early 1980s almost all magazines and comic books were printed in the smaller sizes.
Newspapers are also shrinking. It's mainly a money issue, though they also claim (and fair enough, I suppose) that it's 'greener' to use less paper.
Captured from web.archive.org on 25 Jun 2010. view this capture