The cover photograph in The Times Magazine on Sunday rendered colors incorrectly for the jacket, shirt and tie worn by Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor who is a possible candidate for the presidency. The jacket was charcoal, not maroon; the shirt was light blue, not pink; the tie was dark blue with stripes, not maroon.Here's the original article with a tiny version of the photograph. (Today's correction is preserved there.) I've got the original magazine in front of me, and I can tell you the depiction of Warner is simply horrifying. When I first saw it, I was mesmerized by how they made him so unattractive, so ridiculous. I was fixated on the big Chiclet-teeth and didn't notice the jacket was maroon and the shirt pink. The effect of those things was purely subliminal. But making a man's blue shirt pink? Why do that? In the hope of reaching some unguarded, homophobic part of the reader's mind? Maroon jacket? No competent politician would ever wear a maroon jacket! You're reaching into our heads and making us think he's weird and untrustworthy.
The Times's policy rules out alteration of photographs that depict actual news scenes and, even in a contrived illustration, requires acknowledgment in a credit. In this case, the film that was used can cause colors to shift, and the processing altered them further; the change escaped notice because of a misunderstanding by the editors.
There's still no explanation of how they got his whole face to look so bizarre. Here's how people who like him present him.
UPDATE: The Anchoress blames Warner:
[H]e should have known better. The New York Times Magazine has madea habit of putting deplorable, awful, really cheesy pictures on its front cover when it comes to two sorts of people: Any Republican, and Anyone Who Might Run Against a Clinton.
But isn't the article pretty positive? And doesn't the NYT Magazine routinely publish strange photographs of celebrities' faces? It wasn't long ago that they made George Clooney look like an alien! Here's something I wrote in the comments to this post:
I think someone over at the magazine just believes in anti-flattery for the celebrities that other magazines cater to. I think they want to make us laugh [at] and not fawn over the big shots. It's like caricature, but done with photography.
Posts
28 comments:
But making a man's blue shirt pink? Why do that? In the hope of reaching some unguarded, homophobic part of the reader's mind? Maroon jacket? No competent politician would ever wear a maroon jacket! You're reaching into our heads and making us think he's weird and untrustworthy.
Hey, I am fond of pink shirts. But setting that aside, the effect is horrible for a politician. I don't think it makes him look gay, but it does look awfully familiar. It looks like a photo from the 60's or something, the way the colours appear oversaturated. Actually, it looks like a Christmas photo from the 60's -- I'm sure I've seen something like it on one of those Christmas albums featuring singers from the 50's or so singing the classics, dressed in holiday colours. Since I not infrequently amuse myself by altering the saturation and hue on photographs, I suspect someone was just having fun with photoshop and saved their alterations on the master copy accidentally.
Maroon polyester jackets, pink shirts and white belts.....ugh.....
Nothing homophobic, just bad taste.
I can see why some might be worried about him running for president. He is good looking, articulate, and the former governor of a red state. In short, one of the best the Democrats have to offer in 2008.
Warner was described to me by a supporter as "the anti-Hillary," which I fancy is sufficient explanation for the Times's printing of unattractive, doctored photographs.
I still remember a girlfriend in high school having a fit because I had a shirt with some pink color on it. I thought I looked rather sporty.
The NYT’s explanation is wonderfully bizarre. Film doesn’t make colors shift. Accidentally using film balanced for the wrong light source would, but it’s hard to imagine a pro shooting an NYT cover making such a mistake — or turning in his work if he did. The NYT neither blames the photographer nor exonerates him. Nor does it even mention the electronic image editing process that is part of preparing a photograph for print production. Weird. And what kind of “misunderstanding” were the editors suffering from? Wonder what the real story is.
That's awful. They made him look very sleazy. There's no way that that was an accident. In our marketing department, we have to manipulate images all the time, and nothing like that has ever accidentally come about. That would take some doing. Terrible.
Ann, do you mean Chicklet-teeth, instead of Chicket-teeth?
Notice the careful language -- "the film that was used can cause colors to shift" -- well, in this case, did the film cause the shift, or didn't it? The statement manages to avoid telling us. And again, check out the passive construction of "the processing altered them further." Well, okay, what processing, exactly? Who carried out this processing? Weas the processing intended to cause the color change, or not? Again, no answers.
My guess is that somebody played with the color of the overall shot in order to dramatize the shadows on his face and accentuate that scary-goofy expression. I'll bet the change in the color of his clothing was the unintentional result of that "processing." Did they think that Mr. Warner wouldn't notice??
Oops. "Was," not "weas." The typing that was used to create the previous comment can cause letters to shift, and the processing altered them further.
That's my explanation, and I'm sticking to it!
The NYT altering reality? And failing to 'fess up when caught? I'm shocked, shocked.
The photographer is Alexei Hay. I found an article about Alexei online which seems to indicate that this didn't amount to a confusion about film--film confusion would be spotted prior to publication. Photographer selection was the issue. The Times would rather you believe it was someone else's fault when they could have easily adjusted colors in Photoshop.
The article:
"Maybe that's why the best of his work, though extremely polished, still feels real: frisky, funny, a little fucked-up.
Hay's realism--like that of his peers--is frankly fake, involving heightened theatrical effects that draw on both photojournalistic and Hollywood conventions...But he's up to something else, too, something nastier and nervier and brashly comic.
Even if he sympathizes with the young men and women in his photos, he's more interested in seeing their messy stories play themselves out than in identifying with his subjects or protecting them.
Boys, lost or otherwise, are Hay's strength...He understands masculine aggression and vulnerability, brutality and grace--or at least he's trying to."
The NYT must have too much time on their hands if they stop to photoshop pictures.
But since his appearance is the topic here, I will opine I think Warner is always a bit goofy-looking especially those Chicklet-sized teeth (apt tag, Ann!)
And there is a "too earnest" thing about him too. Like he's trying way to hard for the part.
This is pedantic, but it has to be said: There is no K in Chiclet! Chicle is the gum from a South American tree that is used to make, well, gum.
I really need a nice Spring day.
Thanks for the alert on my especially misspelled Chiclet. Will correct.
Sean: On the cover itself there is a big white circle with the words "THE ANTI-HILLARY?" So they weren't hiding that. I certainly got the impression that they were trying to fight off her challenger.
STILL:
I haven't read the (very long) article, but I think it's quite positive, so let's not over-impute things to the Times. Quite recently they had a completely bizarre picture of George Clooney on the cover. I think someone over at the magazine just believes in anti-flattery for the celebrities that other magazines cater to. I think they want to make us laugh and not fawn over the big shots. It's like caricature, but done with photography.
MrsWhatsit said..."Oops. "Was," not "weas." The typing that was used to create the previous comment can cause letters to shift, and the processing altered them further."
LOL.
Two principles are at work here: (1) retractions and corrections never quite manage to undo the damage caused by the original article, and (2) any publicity is good publicity, for someone seeking exposure. Which principle will prevail, in this case?
The New York Times. Aren't they the newspaper that used to be considered an important source of information, but now considered irrelevant by a growing number of people?
Yes, I think it is the same newspaper.
Are Ron Burgundy fans a major demographic?
http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/movies/reviews/img/anchorman.jpg
Until I saw this post, I thought that cover image was a hand-drawn caricature. Hideous, those teeth. I kept the magazing face down all weekend, it was that painful to look at.
Making a totally unjustified stereotyping comment -- no, it's not about homophobia, Jesus, no man dressed that terribly can be gay.
It's more a retro-lounge-lizard look, no>
It may not be a paper whose worldview agrees with mine but the NYT is certainly not irelevant.
No, but what it says no longer carries anything like the weight it once did -- even in the US, I think the Washington Post has surpassed the NYT as the "paper of record" insofar as there is such a thing any more. And that's not very far, I'd venture.
News weeklies, like Time and Newsweek probably have more impact on public opinion as a whole, I'd guess. Network news, definitely. Possibly even Cable news. In five years, maybe Blogs will be up there too -- I think they already may have surpassed the influence of the Times in a few areas (e.g. Jeff Jarvis's mad yet apparently successful crusade against Dell).
The Times, even in the set of major US newspapers, has also suffered special humiliations that few other papers have had to undergo in recent years. There were the fake news-stories, and the revelation that people didn't complain about obviously fake news stories because they didn't expect newspapers to write the truth anyway. There was Howell Raines bizarre (and unsuccessful) obsession with a small private golf course that wouldn't let women in. There was the whole Judith Miller affair. And the Times has, in each of these cases, become the butt of peoples' jokes on TV, in print, and in everyday conversation. Most recently (that I recall) the joke was the NYT's hysterical claim that talks in Iraq were in ruins over the mosque bombing, only to backtrack the next day, when talks resumed.
Now, maybe other papers have had this constant drumbeat of failure and reverse. Maybe we only hear about the Times because conservatives play it up out of Schadenfreude, and the Times' rivals play it up in the hopes they can capture more market share.
But whatever the reason, I think the NYT is seriously damaged goods now. Not yet irrelevant. Not yet the LA Times. But headed that way.
Balfegor:
I agree with your positioning of the NYT. It's still the biggest ship of its type but taking on a lotta water. And is no longer acknowledged as the best for its ambitious/ creative crew, nor cooking the best meals nor putting on the best shows.
As to the NYT, Raines was mentioned, but not how he, as well as Boyd resigned over the Jayson Blair affair.
I agree that the Gray Lady is sinking, and as a result, WaPo is taking its place as the paper of record. Times Select doesn't help, esp. when the WaPo isn't following suit. Plus, all of the self-inflicted damage that they have incurred over the last couple of years.
The Washington Post is liberal, just not nearly as nakedly partisan as the NYT. And I think that that is paying off for them. I just don't see the naked spin and news supression at the WaPo as I do at the NYT. Sometimes, the Post actually goes after Democrats. Imagine that.
The problem with the NYT is that most of us don't believe that this photo was an accident. They have just too much of a history since Bush was elected President in spinning the news, photoshopping photos, etc. to be taken seriously or at their word.
I think Warner really looks like that. I saw a long Sunday morning interview with him a month or two ago, and I found his appearance painful. He looked like a rickety, ingratiating caricature of Bobby Kennedy. Like any guy who has hair and teeth gets political ambitions. Also I found him the frustrating, careful, both-sides-cancel-out kind of moderate.
cont'd As Democrats go, I am preferring (to my own surprise) Wes Clark. But mainly, I just want someone I can vote for, in one party or the other. Rice, McCain, Giuliani, Graham (not that I've heard he's running; if he were, he'd top my list), Clark, even Biden. Please, not Hillary. Please don't make me choose between her and Bill Frist. Or George Allen.
Jeez. All it takes to make George Clooney look like an alien is a pair of Roddy Piper's sunglasses.
I'm suprised any pro photographers are still using film. The trend is very much towards professional digital cameras in the $5000 - $10,000 dollar range. Oh, and the shirt's color would have been salmon, not pink.
I'm a photographer who has worked for a lot of national magazines. There are no rules about what a photo should look like. It should be interesting. Many photographers market themselves on a particular style that plays with conventions of the craft. Some still use film because they prefer to do so. I believe the photographer was assigned based on his style. There was no mistake with the film or processing--just different.
I don't think it is the responsiblility of the photographer or the magazine to make people look good or look bad. In the editorial world--working for the magazine--a photographer's responsibility is to the person paying for the shoot. People in powerful positions can either go along or seek approval for the photographer. The New York Times should have made this clear and not issued misleading corrections.
Post a Comment