20 March 2007
Realistic Photoshopping of News Magazine Covers
This week's TIME comes with the cover story titled, "How the Right Went Wrong", and features a profile photo of Reagan, along with a single tear dripping down his cheek.
I immediately thought two things: (1) "That's cheesy!" and (2) "That's got to be fake!" Looking for the credits inside, we find out, sure enough, that the cover has two credits - one for the photo and one for the tear.
Now, I'm no right winger and I hold no great respect for Reagan - his legacy, like most presidents, is a mixture of greatness and crap. But this just didn't seem right. Obviously the cover was meant to evoke great feelings - mostly to portray the current Republican leadership as marring the GOP that Reagan built. But to me it just seemed like... schlock. Cheap. Lame.
I though that my reaction had to do with an expectation that the photo be real and not edited. But upon further reflection, that's not a justifiable expectation. The covers are often artful and often non-photographic. It's not like it's LIFE, or Photographer's Monthly. The cover will of course be designed to reflect the character of the magazine as well as to attract newsstand customers.
I think my reaction simply had to do with the lameness of the image itself. I knew it was photoshopped and I knew what the reaction was that it supposed to provoke. My reaction, though, was to be repulsed by it. To me, it speaks unfavorably to the character of the magazine - does TIME really think that I am simple enough to be swayed to pathos or sympathy by this cheap image?
This same issue, TIME reveals a new look inside. They've changed the typefaces and layout. The look reminds me somewhat of the last issue of the Economist I read (it's been years, though), and possibly a little of US News and World Report. Yet the content seems more popularized than those magazines. So the new look combined with the schlocky cover - I'm not so sure I value TIME very highly anymore.
Well, any publicity is good publicity, right? And TIME just rung out a few paragraphs of emotional publicity from me with that cover. Maybe any reaction was what they were after, not just the pathos. I'm a little disappointed that I'd contribute to that, but more disappointed in the magazine. Is any publicity really worth a devaluation of your business' character?
I immediately thought two things: (1) "That's cheesy!" and (2) "That's got to be fake!" Looking for the credits inside, we find out, sure enough, that the cover has two credits - one for the photo and one for the tear.
Now, I'm no right winger and I hold no great respect for Reagan - his legacy, like most presidents, is a mixture of greatness and crap. But this just didn't seem right. Obviously the cover was meant to evoke great feelings - mostly to portray the current Republican leadership as marring the GOP that Reagan built. But to me it just seemed like... schlock. Cheap. Lame.
I though that my reaction had to do with an expectation that the photo be real and not edited. But upon further reflection, that's not a justifiable expectation. The covers are often artful and often non-photographic. It's not like it's LIFE, or Photographer's Monthly. The cover will of course be designed to reflect the character of the magazine as well as to attract newsstand customers.
I think my reaction simply had to do with the lameness of the image itself. I knew it was photoshopped and I knew what the reaction was that it supposed to provoke. My reaction, though, was to be repulsed by it. To me, it speaks unfavorably to the character of the magazine - does TIME really think that I am simple enough to be swayed to pathos or sympathy by this cheap image?
This same issue, TIME reveals a new look inside. They've changed the typefaces and layout. The look reminds me somewhat of the last issue of the Economist I read (it's been years, though), and possibly a little of US News and World Report. Yet the content seems more popularized than those magazines. So the new look combined with the schlocky cover - I'm not so sure I value TIME very highly anymore.
Well, any publicity is good publicity, right? And TIME just rung out a few paragraphs of emotional publicity from me with that cover. Maybe any reaction was what they were after, not just the pathos. I'm a little disappointed that I'd contribute to that, but more disappointed in the magazine. Is any publicity really worth a devaluation of your business' character?
Labels: magazine, photoshop, politics, TIME
