Maxim Cover Blunder?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dok, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. Dok

    Dok Guest

    Hey guys/ladies.

    Tell me if I'm seeing this right. The current cover of Maxim with
    Anna Kournikova. It struck me immediately that her face is out of
    focus but her knee seems quite sharp.

    Do a thing like that in this ng and you get a new a-hole. Here are
    the options:

    1. Editing to soft-focus the face/head only?

    2. Blunder by a pro photog?

    3. Editors liked the pose and overlooked these nuances; besides, her
    adoring fans couldn't care less?

    I say it must be 1 and/or 3.

    BTW, the photos and interview were terribly tame.

    Dok
     
    Dok, Jul 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dok

    Mark M Guest

    Sadly, many other magazines are switching to editors who promise to remake
    Most world-class newspapers are (literally) written to a target reading
    level of 8th grade. --Not an 8th grade audience, but an 8th grade reading
    level.
     
    Mark M, Jul 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dok

    Lisa Horton Guest

    In other words, the mass market.

    If you wish to speak to a companion without the general populace
    understanding what you say, simply use big or uncommon words
    exclusively. May not apply outside the USA.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Jul 23, 2003
    #3
  4. Literate is a relative term; in a battle between a few hundred thousand
    linguistic purists and millions of people who wilfully contract and adjust
    words and sentences to suit their own speech pattern, the mob wins every
    time. Hundreds of years ago in England we took the French phrase "regardez
    l'eau" and turned it into "loo", which is now a noun for a toilet. The
    people of the USA and Australia, originally speaking the same language as us
    Brits, have made changes and adjustments to the language *for no obvious
    reason*. Now literate people across the USA can misspell the word "colour"
    as much as they like without fear of appearing stoopid. If in years to come
    enough people wander the stores looking for "pacific" items that are
    "supposably" on sale next to the "camera flims", no-one will even bat an
    eyelid.

    And if the world is populated with mild ADHD sufferers en-masse, as most of
    the current Western world is, why would the media who rely on them for sales
    do anything that would turn off their readership?

    Snobs of the world unite, if you must. But you'll be sadly disappointed if
    you think that posting indignant messages on the declining moral standards
    of the Maxim demowhatsit is going to make the slightest difference.
     
    Martin Francis, Jul 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Dok

    Rob Guest

    Simply amazing - nobody has bitten yet!
     
    Rob, Jul 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Dok

    mike II Guest


    Even Scientific American has been severly dumbed down. That will
    certainly cost them their long term subscription base. It becomes a
    downward spiral.

    I sent them a polite note explaining what I felt. They didn't even
    bother sending a form letter back.




    mike
     
    mike II, Jul 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Not so surprising, given that you got it backwards, and most of us have
    spell check.
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 24, 2003
    #7
  8. Dok

    Dok Guest


    Well then.....Judging from the responses, I would conclude that the
    opinion of the respondees most fits choice #2: the photog took a
    less-than-technically-correct shot and the editors, knowing the target
    audience, didn't object.

    All this from participating in this NG over the past year or 2 or so.
    I thank you all for my continuing online education.

    Dok
     
    Dok, Jul 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Dok

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Is there someplace online where I can see this photo? The Maxium site
    appears to offer only a thumbnail.
    This is my guess. But the editor or photographer liked it anyway and
    used it.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 24, 2003
    #9
  10. Dok

    Mxsmanic Guest

    You mean they are forcing the people in their pictures to wear clothing
    now?
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 24, 2003
    #10
  11. Dok

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I don't understand.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Dok

    parv Guest

    I am curious as to where you had encountered "pacific"
    & "supposably" (in place of "specific" & "supposedly" respectively).


    (For a moment i missed the transposed "i" & "l" in "camera flims"
    thinking why would you complain about that. Then i noticed...)


    - parv
     
    parv, Jul 24, 2003
    #12
  13. Dok

    garryac Guest


    You are undoubtedly correct in you supposition. I work as a magazine
    Art editor, and you would not believe some of the utter rubbish I get
    sent to work with from supposedly pro photogs. Digital has made it at
    least 10x worse.

    GAC
     
    garryac, Jul 24, 2003
    #13
  14. Dok

    drsmith Guest

    I live in the USA, and I do purposely use some mis-spellings to aggravate
    those around me - it's an odd sense of humour, I guess. In particular,
    I do tend to use what most people would consider Canadian spellings and
    I do enjoy seeing who's going to try and correct me each time I do it.
    It's kind of like that whole lense/lens thing. Yes, I know which one's
    correct, but in the end it doesn't really matter that much if you
    understood what I meant.

    --drsmith
     
    drsmith, Jul 24, 2003
    #14
  15. Dok

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Mistakes like this are typical of people who are functionally or fully
    illiterate. Since they've never read the words in print, they pronounce
    them as they've heard them, and some of the less audible phonemes are
    dropped or distorted. These are the same people who "ax" you for
    information and wonder why anyone would go to the "libary."
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 24, 2003
    #15
  16. Dok

    T P Guest


    No, I don't think so!

    At least 50% of subscribers to this newsgroup will be completely
    unable to understand your posting ... you made the cardinal error (on
    here) of aiming your message at an educated and erudite audience.

    D'oh!!!!

    Many on here are signally unable to understand words of more than one
    syllable, let alone more than two, which means they won't be able to
    understand my reply either!

    ;-)
     
    T P, Jul 24, 2003
    #16
  17. Dok

    T P Guest


    That was most gracious of you. Lisa!

    ;-)
     
    T P, Jul 24, 2003
    #17
  18. Dok

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    No, literate people read the Web, rather than buying paper magazines.

    Getting back to the picture, does anybody really have a knee fetish?
    There is a French movie about this, "Le Genou de Claire" (Claire's Knee).
    It seemed like a joke in the movie, but director Eric Rohmer is Catholic
    so one never knows. However the knee seems as unlikely as anywhere
    except possibly the elblow.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jul 24, 2003
    #18
  19. Dok

    T P Guest


    The accepted English (British) pronunciation of another French word
    "lieu" (= "place") is also "loo", potentially giving rise to confusion
    when phrases like "in lieu" are used in speech.

    Thankfully, the UK's standards of education have declined to the point
    where only an educated minority of people know what "in lieu" means.
    It could be worse, though ... the UK would have many years before it
    plumbed the depths of "American Educational Standards", even at its
    fastest (1980s?) rate of decline.

    ;-)
     
    T P, Jul 24, 2003
    #19
  20. Well, I only left school in 1999 and I still work with children on occasion.
    Plus, I work in retail and regularly read Usenet... so I would say I am well
    aquainted with illiteracy.
     
    Martin Francis, Jul 24, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.