Pro Photographer Mag

[Alpha]

Any other PPA members see the cover of the most recent issue? Is that not the most god-awful retouching you've ever seen?

 

[That One Guy]

can you post a scan of it?

 

[Alpha]

I'll see if I can get around to scanning it tonight.

Seriously, though. It just blew my mind. It was plastic and crunchy and artifacted. Just AWFUL.

 

[Rhys]

I'll see if I can get around to scanning it tonight.

Seriously, though. It just blew my mind. It was plastic and crunchy and artifacted. Just AWFUL.

I've seen some awfully pixilated avderts. The thing that takes the biscuit though is the cheap history books that have very obvious JPEG artifacts.

 

[Alpha]

Yeah but this is no ordinary advert. It's the cover of Professional Photographer magazine. Just appalling!

 

[Alpha]

lol. Forgot to edit out my address. Here it is:

 

[That One Guy]

I agree that it is a bad job.

 

[Alpha]

My guess is that they went crazy with the surface blur. This is total crap.

 

[That One Guy]

My guess is that they went crazy with the surface blur. This is total crap.

That is one technique that I have never learned and don't want to. The examples that I have seen always look fake and way overdone.

 

[Alpha]

Oddly enough surface blur can be just fine in Lab color.

See
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126035

 

[That One Guy]

Oddly enough surface blur can be just fine in Lab color.

See
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126035

I wonder why that would be. I wouldn't think that color space would affect it.

 

[Alpha]

When you surface blur in Lab you don't lose any contrast, but you do in RGB and CMYK.

 

[That One Guy]

That makes sense. So is it your opinion that lab color is better overall (not just for blur)?

 

[Alpha]

It has its limitations, but so far, yes as far as I can tell. It's vastly superior in a number of ways.

 

[notelliot]

did you send them any photos for consideration?