This evening while I was sitting in one of the oversized very used chairs at Barnes & Noble, I was browsing through a design magazine. This particular design magazine I feel is usually rather good, and helpful, (even this issue was helpful). However I am a photographer, and granted, I can hardly call myself a professional, I tend to think like one. I have an eye for really crappy work, and when I see a really, and I mean REALLY crappy photograph on the cover of a reputable design magazine, it almost makes me not want to read it. (Buuuuuut I did anyway. Well, the articles that pertained to me).

The magazine cover was a photo of a couple in their design studio...maybe? it was sort of hard to tell. Anyway, the photo was so out of focus it was ridiculous. Not only was it out of focus, but it looked like it had been Photoshopped to look out of focus to cover up a crappy image. This makes me mad on many different levels, but to name a few it makes me mad because I could have done a better job, and I haven't done anything yet. It also makes me mad because you'd think, if you're running a magazine you would have better taste, and a much better eye than to put something so horribly out of focus on you're cover. You can get an idea of what the cover looks like by going here: http://www.howdesign.com/currentissue/ But you won't actually see what I am talking about unless you take a trip to your local bookstore or magazine stand. Now, the photographer who did this cover seems to do wonderful editorial work. You can view his work here: jonathanchapman.com and see for yourself that the work is great. Not entirely sure what happened between that work on his website, and the image on the cover of HOW magazine.

Perhaps it wasn't the photographer at all who made a crappy image, but the 'tard who did the post production work in PS that made it a mess. I guess we'll never know.