Powder Photo Annual: Great photos HORRIBLE TERRIBLE DISRESPECTFUL CRAP layout

Almost every photo ruined by someone's absurd decision to pollute each page with a slab of CMYK...sometimes right on the photo!

If you don't think it affects the photos, well you could do layout for Powder, I guess. It absolutely ruins all that gorgeous work - none worse than Christoffer Sjöström's doorway shot.

Block it out with a sheet of white paper, or cut the photo out, and you'll see how different it is.

Forget how brutally disrespectful it is of the photographers - it's disrespectful of the readership.

Shame on you, Powder. Do better next year.

I may be retarded, but what the hell does CMYK stand for?

Cyan Magenta Yellow Key (black)

Cliff, take your meds.

I know, I know - but imagine if you bought one of those photos to display in your home - and it HAD to be displayed in a thick colourful frame.

Grrrrrrrrr!

(I've been grrring about this since I got it, but now that I'm sick I'm somehow compelled to shout at the heavens about it. No energy for anything else, though.)

Magazines hardly EVER present photos in the best way possible. They always manage to fuck it up somehow (layout, horrible color management, etc.) The press industry is still in the dark ages compared to the photo industry.

If you want to poach a picture and put it in a frame on your wall stop being a whinny bitch and pay to photog for it. They ain't rolling in the money and could likely use a few bucks to feed the ability to keep on shooting.

Hell even the sluts in the shots have to drop the cash to get a nice high quality print.

I actually agree.
Not enough to start my own rant, but I did think the same thing when the mag came in the mail.

Having big swaths of CMYK on an otherwise grayscale page is retarded and distracting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

Having big swaths of CMYK on an otherwise grayscale page is retarded and distracting.

---

Which brings me to the question of why the hell they decided to put that shot (Nate Abbott's) and Grant's duotone shot in the CMYK section?

And while I'm ranting... Enander's second shot (and debatably Rogels' as well) is NOT photo annual worthy and stands out like a sore thumb amidst the rest of the great photos... IMHO.

I thought it was an interesting new approach, but otherwise didn't think much of it. Bigger question is why are they putting so many damn ads in the photo section now? Kinda ruins everything, especially the Touch of Grey section.

Powder is getting more and more parkish as well.

The stupid jibby aren't I cool because I can take a picture of myself doing a two foot air with a grab in a sore thumb looking jacket photo on the cover of last month's issue annoyed me.

But I still love the mag, still way more good than bad.

I'll forgo armchair quarterbacking the photo editing, but I disagree with the Rogel photo comment. I think it shows a great perspective that isn't too often published (from what I've seen). I like how it captured a certain element of uncertainty. Where's up, down? Shit, I can't see shit. AWESOME!

I take it that Rogel was shooting downhill into uphill wind? Would I like the shot better had it been differently composed? Maybe, but not if it took away from the uncertain bliss that the image evokes.