scott squire nonfiction Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Here's a funny one. If you're registered with the NYT online, check out here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/business/media/08mag.html You've probably seen as I have the Time Special Edition and Newsweek covers apparently using the same Michael Evans photo. The above article is about both magazines choosing the same single image. Today I stood and looked at both covers, side by side, and I noticed something funny. The background on one image is shifted a bit as compared to the other. This is visible comparing elements of the out-of-focus areas behind and to either side of the former president's face. It seems that only one or two things could be happening: either A) the photographer took the picture at the identical moment with identical lens and aperture from two different cameras, one slightly to the left of the other, or B) somebody in one of the magazines took and shoved parts of the canonical picture around in photoshop. You can see one cover here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101040614,00.html And the other, here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5145917/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/ Now compare particularly the blob of bokeh to the right of Reagan's neck and ear, above his left shoulder. In the Newsweek picture, it's further from his ear than in the Time picture. Might just be toning, you say? I thought so too, but looking at the image up close on the newsstand, particularly, it's easy to see that there are shapes in the light area that are apparently identical in both versions--just that one is closer than the other. Before you jump all over me, promise you'll have a good look in person at the images. I'm really curious what might have been the motive for changing this, if in fact it was changed. If it wasn't, and there is some other explanation, I am super curious how it might have occurred. Any ideas? I'd post the images inline here, but I'm a bit squeamish about infringing the copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattalofs Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 The other weird difference is in the color balance. I can't remember which one is which now, but one of the two has very cool skin tones, the other makes reagan look like he has been running hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I'm sure nothing was changed. The Newsweek shot is reproduced in higher contrast and has much less shadow detail. (See for example, the inside of his collar on the left). The less-bright portion of the highlight has simply gone black in the Newsweek version. The only thing strange about the color balance would be if two magazines got it the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_woodard Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 <I>Photoshop.</I>Nope, just differences in either the scan or the printing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_woodard Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 All scans run through Photoshop and converted to CYMK in Photoshop, Guaranteed in the Magazine Publishing Industry, with each magazine tweeking levels, contrast, hues, all in Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott squire nonfiction Posted June 13, 2004 Author Share Posted June 13, 2004 Mark: You are not looking closely enough. The change is there. Look at the blob of bokeh on the lower right. Each picture has a basically identical 'structure' of two diagonal lines (in other words, it's not just an indistinguished blob) and this distinct structure is closer in one picture than in the other. Gary: It seems likely that Photoshop played a part in what I believe I'm seeing, but if so... why? What motivation? Scanning, converting to CMYK, and tweaking colors and levels and even pointed individual toning--none of these normal operations would have the effect I'm trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to identify. But if you look critically at the two images, I'm betting you'll see them too. Ellis: What part of normal scanning or printing could move parts of the picture around relative to the rest of it? There are other differences, like one picture is softer than the other. The color balance is a lot different. One's credited to the Reagan Library collection (I think it was), and the other to a picture agency. But none of these facts explains the structural diffence between the pictures. I don't imagine anything sinister is going on--it's just an anomaly and I'm super curious as to why it might be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 What's interesting is that the Time shot is much smoother than the Newsweek but the Life cover is more like the Newsweek version. And the big TV Guide cover is a harsher version. My guess is production variations; if editorial additions there would have been either be a halo or horns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_matsil Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 If memory serves me well, I'll tell you what was photoshoped: I've seen this image published many times before. They cleaned up some nasty red bumbs and blotches (esp. on the nose) from overexposure to the California sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Not as bad as what they did to OJ's image 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now