I know nothing about photogragraphy, photoshop, good vs. poor lighting...and my untrained ass can see that cover looks like a composite of cardboard cutouts.
"... Annie shot the scene in separate composites... a shot of January Jones ..., THEN after she got what she wanted she moved to the left and shot Jon Hamm exactly positioned and lit how she wanted. Then ... she ... took some overall shots of the room that would later be stitched together..."
This stops being great photography. She's not capturing anything real.. she's not working with the characters and the room involved and dealing with the lighting and adjustments and getting a feeling. It's all so damn false.
Mad Men. La la la. Perspective. La la la. I'm too distracted by the combined force of Jon Hamm's and January Jones's gorgeousness to notice anything amiss. Hot damn, those are some beautiful people.
I knew that Judi Dench and Helen Mirren photo always bothered me. THAT'S why Judi's not looking angrily at Helen's head, but at her shoulder or neck ruffle.
I have a bit of a problem buying someone's validity as a photographer if they rely so heavily on composite photos. I know, I know, it's commercial magazines and if the perfect shot didn't come out of the actual shoot, they need to cobble on together. It just seems like a photographer with the recognition that Annie Leibovitz has would be able to, I don't know, stage and light an overall scene instead of haphazardly slapping the scene together. Or at least Photoshop well enough so you can't tell afterward. I don't know. It bugs me that she's so renowned and yet can't take a complete picture and/or airbrushes into un-recognition.
Normally I would buy it b/c Marion Cotillard is on the cover. But normally I wouldn't buy anything with Nicole Kidman or Kate Hudson on the cover. Do the two bads cancel out the good? What to do, what to do.....
I don't see any photoshop in the cover image. I just see very specific stage notes from Liebowitz.
Nicole - Try not to look human. And also evil.
Marion - Give me vampire but slightly touched in the head and about to die with the sun in your eyes.
Penelope - Try to look 2 dimensional. Think cardboard cutout.
Kate - I want sexy, scrunchy-faced flasher. Can you do that?
Is Marion Cotillard second from the left? Her face has that crazy hot spot on it - WHY?? Granted, I'm looking at a small image but it look like hot light city on her...and no one else.
Why is Kate Hudson on the cover? She def seems out of place. At first I thought it was a spread of oscar winners until I scanned the end of the cover and saw Kate.
@Eric Northman is mine: Yeah, seeing the four names (Kidman, Cotillard, Cruz, Hudson) you get the sense that "one of these is not like the others"
No, being Goldie Hawn's daughter doesn't count.
I wonder if one of the reasons they use composites is that it means the photographer does not have to deal with competing egos as to who will be placed in the most prominent position on the final version. I seem to recall the hoo-ha a few years back over the cover shoot for the Desperate Housewives. It resulted in some of the stars being relegated to the inside cover by virtue of where they were deliberately placed in the actual group shot..
10/11/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
This stops being great photography. She's not capturing anything real.. she's not working with the characters and the room involved and dealing with the lighting and adjustments and getting a feeling. It's all so damn false.
And it's obvious.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
Nicole - Try not to look human. And also evil.
Marion - Give me vampire but slightly touched in the head and about to die with the sun in your eyes.
Penelope - Try to look 2 dimensional. Think cardboard cutout.
Kate - I want sexy, scrunchy-faced flasher. Can you do that?
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
No, being Goldie Hawn's daughter doesn't count.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09