<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We’ve never been embarrassed about being called aspirational</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/05/05/we%e2%80%99ve-never-been-embarrassed-about-being-called-aspirational/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/05/05/we%e2%80%99ve-never-been-embarrassed-about-being-called-aspirational/</link>
	<description>Former Photography Director Rob Haggart</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:29:15 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Marco Patino</title>
		<link>http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/05/05/we%e2%80%99ve-never-been-embarrassed-about-being-called-aspirational/comment-page-1/#comment-43210</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco Patino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 00:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=2983#comment-43210</guid>
		<description>@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 &quot;amazed&quot; how people who are photographers try and pander themselves off and graphics artists. *tsk tsk*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tim,<br />
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 &#8220;amazed&#8221; how people who are photographers try and pander themselves off and graphics artists. *tsk tsk*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T. C. Knight</title>
		<link>http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/05/05/we%e2%80%99ve-never-been-embarrassed-about-being-called-aspirational/comment-page-1/#comment-43077</link>
		<dc:creator>T. C. Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 00:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=2983#comment-43077</guid>
		<description>@Tim, My thoughts exactly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tim, My thoughts exactly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/05/05/we%e2%80%99ve-never-been-embarrassed-about-being-called-aspirational/comment-page-1/#comment-43021</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 13:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aphotoeditor.com/?p=2983#comment-43021</guid>
		<description>I hope this isn&#039;t too far off topic, but it does speak to magazine content.

Nadav Kander&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;ve ever seen. The image, in my opinion, is a visual history of the past 20 years of Tyson&#039;s life, as well as showing him reaching some level of maturity now.  Tyson looks like an old man who&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope this isn&#8217;t too far off topic, but it does speak to magazine content.</p>
<p>Nadav Kander&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;t really blame Kander, but the magazine for having that standard.</p>
<p>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&#8217;ve ever seen. The image, in my opinion, is a visual history of the past 20 years of Tyson&#8217;s life, as well as showing him reaching some level of maturity now.  Tyson looks like an old man who&#8217;s been defeated by his own vices. He still has a look of intimidation and threat that has been tamed.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
