Opinions on this cover shot?

Hertsman

Hertsman

Messages
3,413
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I subscribe to a quarterly mag called MCN Sport that makes for good throne reading....

Its usually well written/edited and shot.

I have just recieved the latest version in the post today, and upon examination, find myself slightly appalled at the "cover shot"...

Personally, the monster reflection in the screen kills this dead for me, but I wonder what you guys think?


Pants shot IMVHO.....







Apologies if this is in the fora....
 
its that reflection thats driving me insane. How could anyone NOT notice it?
 
I think it's generally considered to be poor form to critique somebody's work behind their back.
 
Hertsman said:
Eh ?
This is a commercial publication that I pay for?

Not sure I understand your comment tbh.
Click to expand...
You've posted an image on the forum that you didn't take. I believe that is against the rules which may be what Stewart is referring to.
 
1/ Its not a photography magazine.. what do you expect?
2/ It's MCN.... what DO you expect?!
3/ "Quality" is a measure of fitness for purpose... as the wrapper for a bit of toilet paper? I'd say it beats the Andrex Puppy, and the 'sustainability' spiel on the wrapper.. so 8 out of 10! And as the saying goes, never judge the book by the cover.. anything actually 'News' rather than gossip & subjecture on the inside?
4/ Could YOU do better? Could you even get the chap in the Studio! Bloke's Italian; shot's probably been taken from a press promo bundle, or the out-takes of a foreign magazine shoot! Its a pre-season spoiler, they probably haven't got much to work with yet!
5/ How much would you pay for them to do better? Its a periodical; its paid for by the adverts on the inside; cover price basically covers cost of posting it to you.. how much more would you pay? How much more advertising would you accept? How much less more-crap-than-news would you abide on the inside?
6/ If a reflection in a photo on the cover of a magazine is ALL you have to drive you mad in your world... LUCKY YOU! I have a Moto-Guzzi in mine, with random and inexplicable electrical issues and when the electrics decide to work, it decides to mysteriously dump all its fuel! Usually when I am behind it, in an open face helmet, thinking that I'd 'fixed' that problem, and wondering whether a match would do the job better! Of course, I am relatively lucky in having so few other worries in my world, that this CAN be such a concern, but at least it is a real problem, and one I might be able to do something to fix... would you like to borrow the matches when I'm done?
 
If I broke some rules, it was because I was unaware of them.

Forgive me for trying to add some conversation to the forum.
 
Hertsman said:
If I broke some rules, it was because I was unaware of them.

Forgive me for trying to add some conversation to the forum.
Click to expand...
Posting an image that you took would be great for that ;)

It is pretty bad form insulting the work of others without them asking for feedback. They may or may not be a member here.
 
ok folks, lets clear this up in reference to the TP stance on this - the rule about not opining on others work is designed to stop people posting links/pictures to specific photographers websites/facebook pages, etc and opinions thereof. However, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere too, otherwise, we would have to stop you offering opinions on, for example, winning photos in Wildlife Photographer of the Year, the Taylor Wessing prize, exhibitions in galleries, and so on, which would be a ridiculous situation on a photography forum.

So, in other words, use your common sense and your own moral compass about how the photo has been used/presented and ergo, whether its fair game or not and when that fails, or its a grey area, rtm it. This has been rtm'd and passed as ok by admin, just for info.
 
If you really dislike it you could of course tear along the crease and use for design purpose in Throne Room . ;)
 
I'm gonna break the trend here and say the reflection doesn't bother me at all. It tells me there is a small screen on the bike. Who said there was a law saying no reflections on anything ever?
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I'm gonna break the trend here and say the reflection doesn't bother me at all. It tells me there is a small screen on the bike. Who said there was a law saying no reflections on anything ever?
Click to expand...
There should be a reflection, but it should be done properly, that one is a mess. ;)

However, in response to the OP, I think the monster logo isn't a 'reflection' it's on the helmet.
 
Last edited:
Hertsman said:
Ok, I get it.
Click to expand...

lol....you got it alright

ffs, its a published cover of a national magazine and up there to be shot at, its crap and you're perfectly entitled to point that out whether the author is around to defend it or not, they could join and comment if the wanted to but they won't because..

a. they couldn't care less
b. the indefensible can't be defended
c. what passes for a publishable cover depends entirely on time and budget, no budget for a PS rescue or to shoot it properly in the first place, but that's the level we're at these days.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I'm gonna break the trend here and say the reflection doesn't bother me at all. It tells me there is a small screen on the bike. Who said there was a law saying no reflections on anything ever?
Click to expand...

No law against it but it's quite distracting, my first thought when seeing it was they were trying to obscure his face for whatever reason.
 
IMO it is a poorly posed and poorly lit image. It seems to me that the most important reason for the image must have been to maximize the number of sponsor badges visible...

I'm quite certain that many here could light that image better (but most of us won't/don't have the specialized equipment required).
 
Lighting's not the best I agree but def not the worst either. The pose I expect is exactly as you describe re sponsors and prob not the photographers fault but a requirement from the riders management.

Isn't this a bit like flicking through some of the high class fashion mags and getting grumpy about hands and feet being chopped off etc? The reality is that the agenda on the editors desks are wildly different to ours viewing only the photography.

I also doubt you could light it better tbh. The photographer was probably given 10 mins access at most to get the shot, was not able to choose the location and given little or no access to the venue beforehand. Add that to also being given 20 mins notice of where to be and a rider's management rep over his shoulder the whole time. This kind of scenario is not unusual at all. Given that, he/she has a done a great job!
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I also doubt you could light it better tbh. The photographer was probably given 10 mins access at most to get the shot, was not able to choose the location and given little or no access to the venue beforehand. Add that to also being given 20 mins notice of where to be and a rider's management rep over his shoulder the whole time. This kind of scenario is not unusual at all. Given that, he/she has a done a great job!
Click to expand...
If we assume all of that, and add in limited access to lighting equipment and no plan/idea what the shot would be... then O.K., it's a passable job.

Isn't this a bit like flicking through some of the high class fashion mags and getting grumpy about hands and feet being chopped off etc? The reality is that the agenda on the editors desks are wildly different to ours viewing only the photography.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. And of course editors have different priorities... it's just a shame that "quality" is dropping in importance.
 
IMHO reflection would look better if it was centralised, thinner and more horizontal. At its current place it is a little distracting.
 
Nowt special about a piece of cardboard.

the screen has defining reflections already, just needed that ridiculous face blocker curbing with some black card, a sheet, my coat, a scrim, baffles, barndoor, fondue set.......cuddly toy.......:/
 
Yv said:
ok folks, lets clear this up in reference to the TP stance on this - the rule about not opining on others work is designed to stop people posting links/pictures to specific photographers websites/facebook pages, etc and opinions thereof. However, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere too, otherwise, we would have to stop you offering opinions on, for example, winning photos in Wildlife Photographer of the Year, the Taylor Wessing prize, exhibitions in galleries, and so on, which would be a ridiculous situation on a photography forum.
Click to expand...

I genuinely fail to make a distinction between WPOTY or just some random person's image. If someone chooses to put their image online and make it public, then surely that's all is required to enable people to criticise it publicly? Why is the Taylor Wessing Prize image OK to be re-posted and criticised, and one mine or yours not? It's a photo, it's online, and it's intended for pubic consumption? It still has an author, who still might see your comments.. especially something like WPOTY.. it's actually likely it might be someone on here... so why does winning WPOTY make it more acceptable?

I think you've just highlighted the problem with the forum rules... the only way to make them work is to have them be hypocritical. If the rules were indeed fair, it would either be all images are OK, or none are OK, but to make a distinction between them based on how "prestigious" you perceive them to be is just judgmental and hypocritical.

If I had taken the WPOTY image, and then saw several threads on here tearing it to pieces would I not be just as upset or offended than if it wasn't a winning image? (Well.. personally I wouldn't actually care.... but many would)

If you don't want criticism, don't post images on the internet.... simple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
ding76uk said:
Totally agree. Worst shot ever. Why don't those of you bemoaning it, get Valentino on his bike, get him to come to your studio, and shoot a better quality version. I am sure you all can do that. Right?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a hundred photographers who could do a better job, but I suspect MCN has done what a lot of magazines are now doing – using a free image. They don't want to pay money for quality when they can get by with a free image.

I don't even think this is a studio shot. I think it's a cut out of an image taken outside. It's been crudely cut out too. So as well as spending buggar all on the photographer for the cover shot, MCN also spent buggar all on the graphic designer used to do the cut out.

In all it shows the contempt magazine companies have for their readers and the creative process involved in producing something worth looking at.
 
photogav said:
I'm sure there are a hundred photographers who could do a better job, but I suspect MCN has done what a lot of magazines are now doing – using a free image. They don't want to pay money for quality when they can get by with a free image.

I don't even think this is a studio shot. I think it's a cut out of an image taken outside. It's been crudely cut out too. So as well as spending buggar all on the photographer for the cover shot, MCN also spent buggar all on the graphic designer used to do the cut out.

In all it shows the contempt magazine companies have for their readers and the creative process involved in producing something worth looking at.
Click to expand...

It also highlights the limited budgets most of these mags are operating on. The problem is that people don't buy mags like they used to, so there is not as much money for content, so quality declines, so less buy it. Repeat until another magazine is dead.

Factory media for example have moved all content to web only. Magazines in the existing format are dead.
 
photogav said:
I'm sure there are a hundred photographers who could do a better job, but I suspect MCN has done what a lot of magazines are now doing – using a free image. They don't want to pay money for quality when they can get by with a free image.

I don't even think this is a studio shot. I think it's a cut out of an image taken outside. It's been crudely cut out too. So as well as spending buggar all on the photographer for the cover shot, MCN also spent buggar all on the graphic designer used to do the cut out.

In all it shows the contempt magazine companies have for their readers and the creative process involved in producing something worth looking at.
Click to expand...
If it's been shot outside, the photographer was very lucky to find a soft box shaped sky to light it with. ;)

Or unlucky! Due to the softbox shaped sky having been placed so badly.
 
Phil V said:
If it's been shot outside, the photographer was very lucky to find a soft box shaped sky to light it with. ;)

Or unlucky! Due to the softbox shaped sky having been placed so badly.
Click to expand...

Hrmm a softbox shaped sky sounds expensive, where can I buy one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top