Has anyone else noticed how much photo reproduction standards have collapsed?

I’ve spent most of my career in the print industry. Thirty-plus years ago, photo reproduction meant scanning chromes on PMT drum scanners and running random (contract) proofs. Those proofs were carefully reviewed by internal QC and then scrutinized again by the client. Two or three rounds of edits were common; removing color casts, normalizing skin tones, opening shadows, dialing in neutrals and key colors. It was slow, expensive, and taken very seriously.

Twenty years ago, as digital photography started to gain ground in magazines and advertising, the process was still largely the same: proof, review, adjust, proof again.

Today? Physical proofs are almost extinct. I honestly can’t remember the last time I ran a random proof of a photo. The overall quality of reproduction has fallen off a cliff. A handful of publications still do it right, but most seem to have quietly given up.

Even major magazines, Vanity Fair comes to mind, now routinely publish covers that would never have passed QC in the past. I don’t know if this is driven by budgets, a philosophical shift, or simple ignorance, but I see shockingly bad images every day in my work and it genuinely bothers me.

The irony is that contract proofs now cost a fraction of what they used to, and image-editing software is cheaper, easier, and everywhere. And yet . . . reproduction is worse than ever.

Am I just turning into a grumpy old prepress guy, or are you seeing this too?