The problem with a lot of men’s magazines is that they worry too much about who they’re addressing, when they should be worrying more about the quality of their content.
Dylan Jones, Editor of British GQ
via FT.com
The problem with a lot of men’s magazines is that they worry too much about who they’re addressing, when they should be worrying more about the quality of their content.
Dylan Jones, Editor of British GQ
via FT.com
3 Comments
I hope this isn’t too far off topic, but it does speak to magazine content.
Nadav Kander’s image of President Obama in the latest issue of the NY Times Magazine is, in my opinion, a clear case of an attempt to turn a mediocre image into something interesting. I know how hard it is to make a good image of a subject while he’s being interviewed. But I find it insulting to lay a lot of heavy post production to an average image to make it more attractive. I don’t really blame Kander, but the magazine for having that standard.
Comparatively, the Platon image of Mike Tyson in the, I think, May 14 issue of Rolling Stone, is one of the most powerful portraits I’ve ever seen. The image, in my opinion, is a visual history of the past 20 years of Tyson’s life, as well as showing him reaching some level of maturity now. Tyson looks like an old man who’s been defeated by his own vices. He still has a look of intimidation and threat that has been tamed.
I sincerely hope that photo editors and art directors move away from gimmicks and back to REAL photography that, not only holds the readers attention, but invites him/her to carefully study those images.
@Tim, My thoughts exactly.
@Tim,
Hear, hear, I agree, plug-ins and (Photo Shop) trickery is no place fact-find, news-worthy content; the look-what-I-can-do syndrome is something too often emphasized and I am “amazed” how people who are photographers try and pander themselves off and graphics artists. *tsk tsk*
Comments are closed for this article!