State of the Art

Question of the Day: Should Retouchers Get Photo Credits?

Yesterday I bumped into the inimitable Laurie Kratochvil, photo editor par excellence, who told me to make sure and read the profile of digital retoucher Pascal Dangin in this week’s issue of The New Yorker
   The profile is interesting, in the thoughtful, thorough, and long way that New Yorker articles tend to be. But it raises some important points about the art of photography now.
     Dangin is the owner and resident genius of Box Studios in New York, the place where lots of big fashion photographers, magazines, and advertisers get their images perfected for print. “His success lies…in his ability to marry technical prowess to an aesthetic sensibility: his clients are paying for his eye, and his mind, as much as for his hand,” writes the article’s author, Lauren Collins.
     At this point I think we’re all aware of how important retouchers have become to the photographic process. Often, as the article points out, it is Dangin who creates a successful image by altering the work a photographer has already done.
     So I have a question I’d like to put out into the world: Should retouchers like Dangin be given photo credits when their work results in something useful? If it truly is his artistry that makes an image work, shouldn’t we know that? Of course that might upset lots of photographers. But what do you think?
     (Above: A photo of Dangin for the New Yorker by Josef Astor. I don’t know if it was retouched.)—David Schonauer

National Geographic Wins Big at Magazine Awards

The lead on almost every story about last night’s National Magazine Awards show in New York will focus on National Geographic and how it won three awards—two for photography (more on that in a second) and one for General Excellence.
    I was at the awards, and I was a judge in the Photojournalism category (won by Geographic). And I love that magazine, so it wasn’t a surprise for me that it won all those awards.
    What surprised me was how oddly funny former baseball player Lenny Dykstra was as a presenter last night. Dykstra was there because these days he’s also a magazine honcho, having launched a title called The Player’s Club, which is supposed to provide financial and lifestyle advice to pro athletes. (Do they really need that? Probably. According to this story, Dykstra’s magazine is having a difficult birth, in part because he spent $400,000 on a launch party.) At any rate, he enlivened the proceedings considerably, just as he once did the Mets locker room.
     Back to the awards: Go here for a complete list of the winners. As I noted, National Geographic picked up the award for Photojournalism, for a story about malaria in the July 2007 issue shot by John Stanmeyer. It was a great piece featuring true photojournalist story-telling, and I was glad it won.
      Here’s an observation for the American Society of Magazine Editors, which administers the awards through the Columbia University Journalism School: Since this was a photo category, you shouldn’t list the writer of the article ahead of the photographer in the official press releases you send out.
      National Geographic also won the National Magazine Award in the Photography category, which honors use of photography in three complete issues. Geographic won for its March, April, and June 2007 issues.
       In the Photo Portfolio category, Vanity Fair won for a story by Annie Leibovitz called “Killers Kill; Dead Men Die: A 2007 Hollywood Portfolio” in its March 2007 issue. Annie was in the audience, as editor in chief Graydon Carter accepted the award. She was smiling and didn’t seem any the worse for wear following the controversy over her Miley Cyrus pictures.—David Schonauer

Annie Griffiths Belt on Cameras and Diapers

If you missed hearing the interview with National Geographic Photographer Annie Griffiths Belt (above) on NRP  NPR last Sunday, you can go here to listen. It’s really a terrific insight into the working life of a photographer. And the whole thing is absolutely charming, since it’s about Annie.
    The interview coincides with the release of Belt’s new book, “A Camera, Two Kids, and a Camel: My Journey in Photographs.”  The book tells of how Belt, one of the first female photographers at National Geographic, managed to combine her professional life and her personal life. In the interview, she talks about how she learned to pack in order to take her two young children with on assignments. She found that diapers could fill dual uses—for her kids’ bottoms and to wrap about fragile photo gear. She says diapers are in fact the best cushioning material she’s ever found.
     That’s very practical advice. It got me to wondering what other everyday items people repurpose to make their photographic lives easier...let's start a list. —David Schonauer

Ballad of the 'Tween Angel

Photographs © VanityFair.com

"You can't just say no to Annie." That was part of the explanation given by 15-year-old superstar Miley Cyrus after photographs were made of her "backless" and clutching a blanket by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. (A VF behind-the-scenes shot is above.) "I think it's really artsy," she told the magazine at the time. "It wasn't in a skanky way."

But by yesterday, Cyrus was backtracking. "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," she said in a publicist's statement. She further criticizes the magazine in a People article, as the more financially minded press mulls over the fallout  expected to hit Cyrus's Hanna Montana phenomenon and its parent company, Disney.

What gives? Having shot to the heights of international fame at such a young age, is Cyrus an example of media exploitation or, rather, a reflection of prudish attitudes about portraiture?

Opinions Fly About Julianne Moore Photos

The May edition of Paris Vogue features some very, very interesting images of actress Julianne Moore, shot by Mario Testino. Oh, the fashion blogs have been buzzing with opinions. Some people loved it. Others...more on that later.
    Moore has graced the covers of dozens of magazines--there is something about her alabaster skin, red hair, and ability to freeze a glacial expression that photographers and editors love. Her cool elevates what would be a fashion picture into something kinda artistic. (Helmut Newton could do it with just about any woman, but he really could do it with Sigourney Weaver.)
    Some bloggers really resented the crotch-on-the-cover thing. Lewd? With Moore's presence, I think the crotch was unnecessary. The inside shot of her in a sheer top is neither lewd nor unnecessary--it's brilliant.
    Several of the blogs I read seemed most upset with the fact that Moore is posing for shots like this at age 47. That's ridiculous. Sexy is sexy, and sometimes 47 is sexiest. 
    The important thing here is to note that this is Paris Vogue, and it fits perfectly into the culture and tradition of that magazine. Your opinion?
    Age aside, Moore looks a lot better than Gwyneth Paltrow on the cover of the May American Vogue. She's been Photoshopped into something unrecognizable.--David Schonauer
   

Is This Any Way To Treat An Iconic Image?

I saw this week's Time magazine cover while getting coffee at our local newsstand, and I must tell you, I felt odd about it. As a visual device, the idea of using Joe Rosenthal's famous World War II image of the flag raising at Iwo Jima as the basis for a cover about global warming...well, it seemed just over-labored. I can't quite bring myself to equate the bitter fight for Mount Suribachi with the effort to control climate change. I think for me it's an aesthetic thing, however, not an emotional one.  According to this report, some war veterans also object to the cover, on very emotional grounds. (I don't agree with the guy who says Time's editors are going to hell for this. I just don't like the cover.) Who's right? Should iconic images be off limits to other uses? --David Schonauer

Here's How to Treat the Paparazzi

So many celebrities complain about the ill-mannered paparazzi who follow them around. But how many go out of their way to be courteous to the photographers who have to follow them through the dark, cold streets at night? NOT MANY is the answer. In this wonderful clip, however, none other than Amy Winehouse brings her personal photo corps nice hot cups of tea. Note to Sean Penn: you'd be better off serving hot beverages to the paparazzi than picking fights with them. Or is that just a guy thing?--David Schonauer

"Get Your Glossy Online"

The above line is from an anonymous reader who posted it — after the words "Save a tree" — as a comment to an interesting piece about the future of magazines. The story was in the New York Observer but you can read it here. (Save a tree, get your pink paper online.)

Among the magazine insiders commenting on the future of print media are Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter (who envisions a new "electronic book" in our future world), Esquire editor David Remnick (who imagines more innovative printing practices), and Wired editor Chris Anderson (who sees magazines staying the same for awhile). Go figure.

Editors at many print magazines (including American Photo) may take comfort in the facts that a) a new medium doesn't necessarily kill an old one; b) nothing looks better than a picture printed on decent paper; and c) people don't usually take their computers to the bathroom or curl up in a tub with them.

Still A Photo Icon After All These Years

Say what you will about Madonna, she knows more about the power of still images than any other modern celebrity I can think of. The only other star I can think of who took as much care in etching a photographic identity was Marlene Dietrich. In Madonna's case, of course, the genius lay in how many different identities she could assume. This image is from the fabulous layout in the new Vanity Fair by Steven Meisel, who has always been best at shooting this icon. By fabulous, I mean it's a real page turner, which you can literally do by going here. The website also lets you browse the many, many stories it has run about Madonna over the years.--David Schonauer

Burt Keppler, Man of Action, Remembered

The irreplaceable Burt Keppler was warmly remembered at a memorial held last week at Manhattan's New School, fondly emcee'd by Keppler protegee and former Popular Photography Editor Jason Schneider. Family, friends, and colleagues such as Popular Photography Editor-in-Chief John Owens, Hachette Filipacchi CEO Jack Kliger, and Canon tech maven Chuck Westfall spoke about Burt, who shared his knowledge with generations of readers at Pop and before that at Modern Photography, as a man of kindness and -- though seemingly unperturbed by tumultuous events in photography -- of action. Which gives me the opportunity to run pictures of the Herbert Keppler semi-posable action figure.

A Flickr of Leibovitz

Master photographer that she is, Annie Leibovitz is often stirring up the blogosphere ... as in the recent debate, both con and pro, over her new Vogue cover featuring an image of Gisele Bundchen and LeBron James (left).

But today, we're especially intrigued with this item about Lebovitz and Flickr. Hmmm. (Be sure to read the whole post and check out her Flickr page at the bottom.)

Iconic Decline

Photo © Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times

As an amateur guitarist and rock-and-roll fan, James Blake Miller may well marvel that he's made "the cover of the Rolling Stone." But he's probably not thrilled about the context.

Miller's picture is not on this week's RS cover — that honor goes to Chris Rock — but Miller is the subject of one of the main feature stories: "Home From War: Tragedy of the Marlboro Marine." The story recounts the sad journey that Miller's life has taken since his face became famous in an iconic photograph (above) — a shot of Miller in Falluja, Iraq, made in 2004 by imbedded photographer Luis Sinco for the Los Angeles Times.

The picture — which seemed to capture at once the steely resolve, grimy entanglement, and weary disillusionment of U.S. soldiers in Iraq — became widely known and emblematic of the war. "To my surprise, the image became iconic, capturing a sense of the front line in a young Marine's face," Sinco wrote later in the L.A. Times.

But after his return home, Miller's life began to unravel, and he became a different kind of symbol: a medically discharged former vet who suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, wartime flashbacks, and social isolation. Sinco continued to follow Miller's story and created a moving multimedia piece called "The Marlboro Marine" on the photojournalism website mediastorm.org (as we recounted in American Photo's March/April story on "The Photographer as Director").

National Magazine Award Nominees Announced

The nominations for the National Magazine Awards have been announced, and there are some interesting photography angles. I was a judge in the Photojournalism category, so I’m going to focus on that category in this post. For a complete list of all the NMA nominations, go here.
       In general, nominations in the three photo categories went to the same magazines that have been honored in the past. Aperture magazine received nominations not only in the Photojournalism category but also in the General Excellence category for magazines with circulations under 100,000. National Geographic was nominated in the Photography category and the Photojournalism category. New York magazine was nominated in both the Photography and Photo Portfolio categories (among many others).  But as I said, the interesting news, from my perspective, was in Photojournalism. I saw a glimpse of the future.

Catcher of the Eye

For image-makers who want to learn to cut through the clutter of today's information glut and quickly grab people's attention, here's a chance to learn from one of the true masters. The Museum of Modern Art in New York just announced a forthcoming exhibition, George Lois: The Esquire Covers from the 1960s and early '70s. Along with large-scale prints of many of the final covers, the show will also show Lois's original artwork for several of the designs, including the renowned picture of Andy Warhol drowning in a soup can (above), which illustrated a May 1969 story about the decline of the American avant-garde.

This shot is particularly clever because, in the days before Photoshop, Lois and photographer Carl Fischer created it out of two images — one with the can of soup (Fischer says they dropped marbles in it; Lois says it was a stone) and the other a posed portrait of Warhol (he said, "Oh greaaaaat," Lois recalls). These were combined in a "C-print that was printed together and retouched," Lois told Kurt Andersen in an interesting interview recently broadcast on NPR's Studio 360. It will be fascinating to see the "images behind the icons" at the MoMA show — it runs from April 25 through March of 2009 (for a preview sampler of the Esquire covers you can go here).

The Rise of the Citizen Paparazzi

Welcome to paparazzi nation: Today’s Wall Street Journal documents the rise of citizen paparazzi—all those “civilian” (or non-pro) photographers armed with digital SLRs who snap celebrities when they seem them. As Brad Elterman of the Buzz Foto paparazzi agency says, it’s all about people being in the right place at the right time. But of course all this causes trouble for the real paparazzi, because the non-pros sell their work for cheap, driving down prices. In that that sense the paparazzi industry is facing the same challenges that other kinds of photographers do. Is it another case of digital technology driving down prices? Is trend merely the natural culmination of our culture's modern obsession with celebrity? The article is plentiful with details about how much paparazzi make, how much agencies like X-17 make a year ($11 million) and more. —David Schonauer

Collective Cool

Last night I attended my first Nutopia Forum meeting in much, much too long. I was introduced to the group more than a year ago when I wrote a story about them, and have continued to keep in touch whenever possible. The group of young, talented photographers, headed by superstar (and supernice) portrait photographer Platon, is expanding upward and outward with a pared-down online magazine (I did a story about that too) and a blog (despite Plat's admitted wariness). Big things are in store for both (which I won't go into here and ruin the surprise), but mostly I wanted to give props to the group (and especially the assistants who do the actual posting) for keeping us all up to date on the coolest of the cool things "out there": painters, filmmakers, and musicians, not just photographers; classics that have been forgotten, not just hot newbies; and real live events and openings, not just links to websites.

A few gems I was happy to be reminded of (or introduced to, ahem):
The awesomeness of Lillian Bassman
The why-didn't-I-think-of-that brilliance of UnPhotographable
The...wait, what's this? A plug for the new college mag I'm editing? (thanks guys)

~Miki Johnson

Economics 101: Britney and Photography

Some people don’t like it that I keep posting about the paparazzi, but how can anyone who writes about the photo world ignore them? It’s like when I say I’m sick and tired of seeing Britney Spears on magazine covers…money talks, and Britney keeps showing up on the newsstand, week after week.
     Now Portfolio magazine has quantified the Britney Effect on the Economy, and as you might expect photography is a big part of the story. The magazine estimates that the annual value of Britney to the U.S. economy is up to $120 million a year. The magazine says record companies, promoters, and licensers make $30 to $40 million off of Britney.
     Meanwhile, the paparazzi make $4 million a year from selling pictures of her, the magazine says. The X17 agency, which keeps a 24/7 watch on the troubled pop star, admits that she accounts for 30 percent of its revenues.
     Celebrity media where the real money is.  The magazine says that tabloid magazines, web sites, and other media make $74 million a year from Spears.
--David Schonauer

Media Watch: Tears for a Fallen Firefighter

Everyone tells me newspapers are going away, and I hope it isn’t true. As I posted yesterday, information has become a niche commodity, but newspapers still allow us to look outside our own interests to see things we didn’t know we were interested in. In that regard they differ from other media, such as magazines. (The axiom is that newspapers bring the world to you, while magazines bring your world to you. I suppose that means that personal media like Flickr allow you to bring yourself to the world.)
     I got to thinking about all this when I looked at the Metro section of the New York Times on my train ride into Manhattan this morning. I thought I would spend the trip reading about the results of the New Hampshire primary, but instead my attention went to Nicole Bengiveno’s photo of Jessica Martinson at the funeral of her husband, Lt. John Martinson of the FDNY, who was killed while fighting a blaze in Brooklyn last week. You can read the story here.
     Papers all over the country bring their readers this kind of local news every day. The pictures and the stories create something greater than the parts—newspaper don’t just provide information, they are something more visceral; they form the texture of our time. To look at today’s newspaper, or a newspaper from a particular day 50 years ago, is to know what that day felt like to people.
      I don’t get that feeling when I get news stories off the Internet, frankly. The texture of the news is torn up by that medium, which compels users to constantly choose what they want to see and read. I suppose it's old-fashioned to believe in the value  of confronting worlds that you don’t think you’re interested in.—David Schonauer

In the Future, Will Anyone See Your Photos?

This week we’ll all be eagerly reading reports about the important business the nation is conducting as Americans prepare to choose what kind of nation this will be in the future. No, I’m not talking about the presidential primary being held today in New Hampshire—I’m talking about the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Already we know that Blu-Ray has won the election over high-def DVD formats. Comcast is promising nearly unlimited choices of on-demand entertainment, which will come as a surprise to all those analysts who have been writing off the cable industry. Consumer electronics and photography have essentially become part of the same technological world, so we expect to hear some news about out special world coming out of CES as well.
     Now, however, let me come to the point of this meandering post: I have a gnawing suspicion that the wonderful technology that is offering us so many choices will in fact be the death of photography—or at least photography in one particular sense: That we make pictures so that other people can see what we have seen. It may be that in the future no one will really look at your pictures. You may be the only one who cares about what you have seen. And even you might not be that interested.

The Amazing Burt Keppler

There are fond remembrances out there already by those who knew Burt Keppler better than I did, including former Popular Photography editor Jason Schneider and former Pop managing editor Mason Resnick, both also Burt's colleagues at the late Modern Photography. Burt's old friends have tried their best to convey specifics of his brilliant career, though the man had such influence and such a presence in the photo industry that it would be impossible to account for so much history with anything but a thick biography. Read their tributes if only for the sense of a life fully lived, and I'll add just a few thoughts and recollections. (Below, Burt with fellow Pop Photo great Norman Rothschild.)

Nice List... Hey, What About American Photo?

The Photopreneur blog has a listing for the "Five of the Best Magazines for Your Photos." These are the publications that represent the best "opportunities for freelancers." While that may sound like an upbeat premise, it's pretty depressing that the article is illustrated with a bunch of old Life magazines. Couldn't they have found a magazine that still exists? I would have sent them a box of American Photos, but they didn't put us on the list. At any rate, I encourage all freelancers to keep us in mind--especially when we announce our next "Images of the Year" contest. By the way, the best magazines for freelancers, according to Photopreneur, are: 1. Yankee Magazine; Southwest Airline Spirit; 3. National Geographic; Careers and Colleges Magazine; and Country Magazine.
--David Schonauer

Sign of the Times

I was talking with a good friend the other day about the "trend" pieces in the New York Times and how they are usually a little behind the times (ahem, sorry, couldn't resist). My point in that discussion was that, if you're the New York Times, no one expects you to be on the cutting edge. Instead, when the Times writes about a trend it makes it true somehow...they are the arbiters of trends, not the hounds.

It was thus with much interest (and some glee) that I saw that the Times Style section today leads with a story about a trend in photography toward the increasing acceptability and collectability of "fashion" photos. Hmm, why does this sound familiar? Oh yes, that's right, American Photo highlighted the same trend in its Nov/Dec feature on everything "emerging" in photography.

So I guess my point is, although it's not that hard to be ahead of the Times with our trend pieces, it's nice to know that they agree that something is going on here. And nice to see even more examples of this new high-art fashion paradigm. Plus, they simultaneously hit on another topic we cover in the Jan/Feb American Photo (on stands soon): the booming collecting market in photography--even, and sometimes especially, fashion photography.

One thing I'm curious about, though, is how everyone else feels about this assertion:
 

All of a Sudden, Everyone's a Paparazzo

We've had some interesting discussions on this blog about the paparazzi, and in general I've been standing up for the photographers, who I see as perfoming some kind of professional act. But according to this article in the New York Times, those swarming crowds of paparazzi you see in photos like this one are all pros. Many are "civilians" (tourists, cooks, soccer moms) who roam the streets with digital SLRs and camcorders, eager to snap a celeb for some spare cash. In fact, as the article points out, the term paparazzi may not even have a true meaning anymore.
    And I would agree, even on a stylistic level. The celebrity "street" imagery we see today is shamefully unimaginative and boring, compared with the work of Ron Galalla, Marcello Gepetti, and Tazio Secchiaroli. Those guys worked for their money, and produced memorable pictures that have stood the test of time. (Case in point: Galella's 1971 image of Jackie Onassis, made from a taxi cab window in New York. She had a court order keeping Galella 25 feet from her, but that didn't stop him from making the most beautiful picture of her ever.) Today's mom-and-pop paparazzi don't deserve the title.
--David Schonauer

New Nutopia Magazine

I've been following photographer Platon's Nutopia Forum for more than a year now, and I'm excited to see them making good on one of their many goals for the year: launching an online magazine. Available at NutopiaForum.com, the magazine is a simple, straightforward showcase for talented photographers of varying ages, accomplishments, and specialties. For more details, see my write-up in the November/December issue of American Photo, part of our "Emerging" feature. The magazine and its photographers deserve your attention.

~Miki Johnson

(Photo: © Grace Doherty, from issue 1 of the Nutopia Forum magazine.)

Hansel, Gretel, Halloween, and Wegman

Scary doesn't get better than this: This fall the Metropolitan Opera in New York mounts a production of Engelbert Humperdinck's "Hansel and Gretel," and to mark the event 17 artists created their own interpretations of the story, including this image by photographer William Wegman. See the entire portfolio in this week's New Yorker magazine, or online here. Love it.
--David Schonauer

National Geographic Announces $50K Photo Grant

The golden age of National Geographic -- sometime in the '70s and '80s -- is a thing of legend in the photojournalism community, a time when contributing photographers spent months working on a particular photo essay, in the process racking up fees and expenses in the tens of thousands of dollars. The level of resources dedicated to photography -- not just financial but editing and production as well -- made the magazine one of the premiere outlets for in-depth photo essays, and forever endeared it as a benevolent father of concerned, environmental photography.

Today's budgets have slimmed considerably, but the magazine that fronts the National Geographic Foundation's media empire is still one of the friendliest magazines to work for. It consistently produces some of the best photo reportage on the planet.

Continuing in this tradition, National Geographic magazine is extending its annual grant of $50,000 to a professional still photographer who best "reflects the Society's goal to convey an understanding and appreciation of the unique -- and vulnerable -- world in which we live."

The grant is open only to professional photographers -- defined as any professional photographer whose primary source of income is through his or her photography -- so weekend warriors and amateurs step aside. Past winners include Carolyn Drake's report on Brooklyn's Lubavitch culture, Penny De Los Santos' look at Southwest Texas Hispanic culture, and last year's winning proposal by Eugene Richards to cover people profoundly affected by the war in Iraq.

Applications will be accepted from now until Feb. 1, 2008. The application process requires a written statement outlining either a proposed or current project and examples of the applicant's photography. The work presented should demonstrate an ability to competently photograph the project being undertaken or proposed.

For complete details, rules and application, visit nationalgeographic.com/photogrant.

--Jay DeFoore

(Photographs by Eugene Richards)

Order of the Garter: How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Opulence

The best photographs don't need much explaining, which is fine with me because these by Coppi Barbieri take my breath away. You can find them in the fall issue of V magazine, which is terrific, by the way. In fact, V may be the new W, if what you like is ART AS FASHION/FASHION AS ART. Coppi Barbieri is a husband-and-wife team (Fabrizio Coppi and Lucilla Barbieri) who excel at shooting objects of desire. Desire is certainly the key here--but it doesn't come from the bits of visible skin or the sparkle of jewelry. It's the overwhelming sense of opulence that drives us wild, the lusty sense of abundance of color and texture that is just a feast for the eyes. (I can't help but think about lip-smacking British TV chef Nigella Lawson wearing this stuff when she's not in the kitchen--or, actually, when she is in the kitchen.) There's also a wonderful Edwardian naughtiness, which is very apparent in this video montage of the work. You'll feel like your watching the credits of the best Masterpiece Theater ever.
--David Schonauer

Q&A with Time Magazine's MaryAnne Golon

John McDermott tipped us off to an in-depth Q&A he just published with Time magazine director of photography MaryAnne Golon on the Canon Europe website. In December of last year Golon took over the top photo editing spot at the magazine for her longtime mentor, Michelle Stephenson. At the time, I wrote:

Golon … is younger and spunkier than Stephenson and perhaps better equipped to grapple with the changing media landscape. The future for newsweeklies in print is anything but certain, and Golon should have her hands full over the next few years guiding the magazine into the digital age.

From McDermott's interview:

So what shape is photojournalism in today?

I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of people saying that photojournalism is dead, but it has never been in worse shape than it is right now. The internet is the fastest, quickest most amazing way to reach the public that we've ever had and that's all very exciting. It represents a much larger market for photojournalism than we've ever had before. But in terms of traditional outlets, in how images get displayed and support for long-term projects, the market has really contracted. Time is still one of the places that embraces photojournalism and we want to be able to do it whenever we can. I think it's just becoming harder and harder to support longer-term projects given the amount of space we're devoting to it.

Cover Story, Part III: Ugly Betty Photoshopped?

How much photo manipulation is too much? The controversy still rages, and always will. The October issue of Glamour magazine featured actress America Ferrera--TV's Ugly Betty--on its cover, and she seemed suddenly slimmed. At least she did to Gawker's Jezebel blog, which compared the cover to a shot of Ferrera at this year's Emmy awards, which took place the same week the Glamour cover hit newsstands. However, as reported in this post on the blog of trade magazine Folio, Glamour denies that any retouching was done.
    Folio philosophically mentions that photo manipulation has long been a common practice when it comes to polishing up magazine covers. They back that assertion up with a quote from George Karabotsos, design director of Men's Health magazine, which got caught earlier this year adding inches to the biceps of tennis  pro Andy Roddick for a rippling cover shot. Karabotsos does err when he mentions that National Geographic was manipulating photos as far back as 1952, when the pyramids were moved around to improve the composition of a cover photo. That did happen, but it 1982. (We'll kindly assume it was a typo or a young reporter's poor dictation skills.)  My feeling is that consumers probably expect that cover photos are manipulated nowadays. I'm not even sure people even consider cover photos as actual photos. They look at them as illustrations.   
--David Schonauer

Cover Story, Part II: Photos Show that Angelina's Breasts Gain 10 Pounds, Says In Touch Weekly

Just saw this story about Angelina Jolie, who as you'll see in my previous post ranks fourth on the list of celebrities that sell magazines. Anyway, it seems that In Touch Weekly had a story ready for this week's issue stating that Angie had gained weight, possibly because she was pregnant. However, she was then snapped by a paparazzi wearing a "midriff-baring" tank top, and in the pictures she looked really skinny. In Touch did what any self-respecting celebrity-gossip mag would...it bought up all the skinny photos so no other weekly could run them. Then the magazine cropped the photos to hid Angie's flat tummy. So far this is nothing that magazines haven't always done to protect their stories. But here's the great part: In Touch says the paparazzi pix show that Jolie has indeed gained 10 pounds...in her boobs. Okay, everyone: What do we think? Is she or isn't she?
--David Schonauer

Cover Story: Which Celebrities Really Sell Magazines

All of us experts in the magazine business used to know that sex was what sold. Now it's celebrities on covers