As promised in the "Wasted Adverts and Mad Uncles" discussion, I will not hijack that thread but will start another to revisit a problem with illustrations in AP that I have aired before. I think the current issue of the magazine brought the matter back to mind more strenuously because the product under test was a very high quality lens. (Leica Summilux-M 28mm f/1.4 Asph.). With such a high quality lens, I suggest that any review has to be illustrated in a way that addresses the very fine details - either to confirm or to question the manufacturer's quality claims. Or don't use illustrations at all - words always print at a readable resolution! In that particular test the offending picture was one that was captioned "Closed to f/5.6 the lens produces really sharp images that are filled with detail." Yet the picture, as printed in the magazine is far from sharp and much of the detail was simply not reproduced. I would love, for example, to have been able to see all the detail in the sailor's cap badge. I do not doubt that the lens could resolve it and that a good quality print of the photograph would reveal it - but with the paper quality and printing processes of a magazine like AP, the photo is simply a waste or space. Or worse - who would buy a lens that produces photos like that one?. That is a specific example but it is a general problem. Often camera tests are illustrated by pictures which purport to show sensor resolution at various ISO settings by means of striated diagrams - but no difference is clear in the low-res magazine. I suspect that, in such cases, when the writer or sub-editor looks at the page mock-up on a good quality monitor, the qualities that the illustrations are intended to show are, indeed, fairly clear. But that clarity is not carried on to the printed page. It can also be a problem with "normal" photographs. I don't know how often, in the "Appraisal" feature, we are shown "Before" and "After" versions of the same image - but, once printed on the page, both look essentially the same. In fact, sometimes the "before" is shown in a smaller size than the "after" and, as a consequence, actually looks better than the re-processed version. Is there a case for re-thinking the use of illustrations in AP?