Do pros get away with it?

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I was in the checkout line and saw the most recent cover of Cosmo and the model has orangish yellow skin. It could be purposeful and artistic but to me it looks like his white balance is just off.

Do you ever see "professional" pictures that are bad but because they are pros they get away with it?

 

[Overread]

There are whole websites dedicated to this.
There are mistakes everywhere, heck some are really huge, often where the photographer has done a cut-paste job and something doesn't get correctly transferred over - eg limbs or fingers or arms get left off or extra limbs are left in from someone who was cloned out imperfectly.

Heck watch TV adverts and you'll see a lot with exposure problems (I've been seeing a fair few more these days with huge blownout areas - possibly a symptom of cheaper digital recording equipment on the market now).

 

[Designer]

Another possibility is that the photo editor made changes to the photograph.

 

[tecboy]

I have met several pros with 30-40+ years working with film and switching to digital. I don't really judge based on their works.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Cosmo?? pick a better magazine! lol They seem to go for really bright covers don't they? Maybe not the photo so much as their printing. Or they airbrushed her a tan. (Or she put on some of that fake tan goo that turns orangeish! lol Being a guy you probably never tried any of that in your foolish youth.)

 

[480sparky]

Life's way too short to waste brain cells on stuff like this.

 

[CameraClicker]

I was in the checkout line and saw the most recent cover of Cosmo and the model has orangish yellow skin. It could be purposeful and artistic but to me it looks like his white balance is just off.

Do you ever see "professional" pictures that are bad but because they are pros they get away with it?

Professional doesn't mean "good", it means "paid".

 

[KmH]

The Cosmo cover image will have likely been edited by Cosmo's editing staff after the photographer provided the photo.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Regardless of if it's the editing staff or the photographer I would think a magazine of that caliber would put out better photos. Don't you think, or do they have so much clout that they don't need to?

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I was in the checkout line and saw the most recent cover of Cosmo and the model has orangish yellow skin. It could be purposeful and artistic but to me it looks like his white balance is just off.

Do you ever see "professional" pictures that are bad but because they are pros they get away with it?

Professional doesn't mean "good", it means "paid".

That's true but people usually don't pay for stuff that's not good for long.

 

[CameraClicker]

I was in the checkout line and saw the most recent cover of Cosmo and the model has orangish yellow skin. It could be purposeful and artistic but to me it looks like his white balance is just off.

Do you ever see "professional" pictures that are bad but because they are pros they get away with it?

Professional doesn't mean "good", it means "paid".

That's true but people usually don't pay for stuff that's not good for long.

For National Geographic, Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and some others that's probably true. The closer a magazine gets to being a tabloid, the less their patrons care about photo quality, and the longer they will put up with photos that we might consider sub-par.

Observing some of those sites that focus on "professionals" that don't measure up, it is obvious that there is an almost endless supply of people willing to pay for bad photos if the price is low enough.

 

[mishele]

Give us a link to the cover. I want to see it.
I did a quick search but it gives me every cover under the sun. hehe

 

[Light Guru]

Another possibility is that the photo editor made changes to the photograph.

More likely it was the printing. It's not like each they are going to treat each magazine print with the same attention you would give to a fine art print.

Give us a link to the cover.

The online image would look just fine if it is a printing issue. The OP saw it while waiting in the checkout line not browsing online.

 

[jsecordphoto]

it's cosmo....take into consideration the taglines for articles they also put on the cover.

 

[Josh66]

I think the most likely thing is that the photographer supplied the magazine with unedited (or minimally edited) photos, which they did their own editing on. Whoever did that was probably more worried about copy space than white balance... Or they just didn't know any better.

I have met several pros with 30-40+ years working with film and switching to digital. I don't really judge based on their works.

What else is there to judge? Effort?