Do pros get away with it?

[imagemaker46]

Photo editors have managed to help destroy more photographs than pretty much anyone I know. In the magazine and newspaper business they will crop all the content out of a great image to make it fit in a space. If it's Cosmo chances are it was done that way for a reason.

 

[KenC]

I saw a magazine cover photo once in which the model's cleavage was in focus and her face wasn't. Wait, maybe that wasn't a mistake ...

 

[rexbobcat]

It might also have to do with the printing. I've seen many photographs destroyed by low quality paper and printers.

 

[manaheim]

What you're looking for is a lowering of the bar. "They produce crappy work, so I can produce crappy work and be a pro." Doesn't work that way, otherwise I'd be a published author by now.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Mish I didn't see the cover on their website and all I can say is boy has that magazine gone downhill! lol not that it was exactly uh, intellectual or anything but still. I wonder was it hair, skin, eyes or just skintone that was off? As long as people buy the thing maybe they don't care if the adjustment or printing or whatever was off.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Here's the only link I found to it, but oddly enough it doesn't look nearly as bad as when I saw it in person. I compared it to the skin tones of several of the other magazines that were on the rack and it was the only one that really looked off in the bunch.

Emmy Rossum Gets Flirty on the Cover of ‘Cosmo’! | Emmy Rossum, Magazine | Just Jared Jr.

 

[tecboy]

It looks like this photographer used gel to match the color of the background.

 

[D-B-J]

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

And yet you wasted yours commenting... As did I... Damnit!

 

[minicoop1985]

She's got jaundice and now you should feel bad.



I'm kidding, sheesh.

 

[Braineack]

I quite often think that magazine shots are pretty awful.

Current example is Joan Londen's cover: http://cdn-media.extratv.com/2014/09/24/joan-lunden-bald-cover-450x600.jpg

Just plastered with light and retouched to the point that she doesn't even look human anymore.

and everytime I look at those hands (that I assume were added in from a different shot) all I can think is this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PsBwm5FfrTY/UY7jdtlLmvI/AAAAAAAAAmY/TawapOWjz_0/s1600/kristen10.jpg

Where I do see good photography is in Entertainment Weekly: http://imageserver.moviepilot.com/c...weekly-goes-galactic.png?width=460&height=612

 

[unpopular]

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

As far as color control, the photographer has no say at all. This is a prepress decision that likely has more to do with color psychology than good photography. While making a subject yellow (as opposed to orange-red) is questionable, since it will render the subject ill-looking, the choice is likely made to make the magazine stand out visually in the half second (literally) one would normally glaze over it in the checkout.

Now that I think of it, the sickly look may very well be to get people to stop for a moment to visually attempt to figure out why the subject looks off before being sucked into the headlines. Likely, "too yellow" will not be what the average person concludes after reading "Miley Cyrus Sex Tape".

 

[tecboy]

Maybe custom white balance is so hard to do.

 

[dennybeall]

Did the false color attract your attention to the magazine?
All that needs to be said...................

 

[mcap1972]

It could me the editor, retoucher or printer's fault.

 

[AlanKlein]

If it looks good on the internet but bad in the print copy, I'd say it was their printer.

Probably using those cheap ink suppliers for their printers.