Lazy Photoshopping

Remember this

Caleb Sommerville, who worked at the Kansan, wrote a comment on the blog …

I worked at the Kansan as a reporter when this article (and horrifying picture) ran. Jessica Wicks is a friend of mine, and I remember very well this front page.

Let me outline what happened.

The editors wanted a story about guns and campus after the other campus shooting in Illinois. Jessica Wicks was assigned it, and wrote a fair article.

The way the Kansan (and most newspapers) run is that the reporter turns the story in to the system, where it sits until designers plug it into a layout program like InDesign. If art needs to run with it, designers insert it accordingly. Sometimes it’s photos taken by the photo staff, sometimes it’s clipart, sometimes it’s graphics.

Since this was a time-sensitive and highly timely article, they decided to run it front page, above the fold, with some eye-catching art.

Here’s where we get dicey. The horrible pictures are a DESIGNER’s fault (who was yelled at the day this ran; I witnessed it), who went against the editor’s and the reporter’s wish and created this monstrosity.

The editors were pissed because of the hilariously bad graphic with such a serious story, the reporter was pissed that her story now looked like crap, and people who knew about guns were pissed that some idiot designer pissed all over the front page with his bad photoshop skillz.
Believe me, this was on the Wall of Shame for a long time.

Speaking of bad photoshops …

For a movie that cost just $80 million to make, it is probably too much to ask for them to photograph guns from both sides rather than just mirror them in the movie poster.

[ Many thanks to Zak for the movie poster pic. ]



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • They did photograph both sides, what do you have against the left-handed?!

    ;^)

  • Matt Groom

    I dunno. I think you’re just being picky about the poster, Steve. That’s not nearly as egregious as the photoshop in the article.

  • MrSatyre

    I’m as much a stickler for accuracy in films as any other anal-retentive s.o.b., but I have to give them leeway here because the physical differences from one side to the other of any of those guns would be just enough to upset the visual balance, especially on a larger scale poster.

  • Burst

    I’m going to royally ticked off if all those guns aren’t actually IN said movie.

    That newspaper picture keeps growing on me, I just now noticed the extra
    trigger.

  • Mono

    I can understand the Expendables poster (you know, at least they photographied it right and just mirror’d it for a wing-like effect)… but that aberration… poor 1911 🙁

  • spudfiles

    haha Fail!

    Reminds me of the Romeo and Juliet poster…

    http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/romeo-juliet-l-poster.jpg

  • HeavenlySword

    Lol greg, was just about to say that.

    I’m a southpaw myself haha

  • Lance

    More anti-gun crap from the liberal media.

  • Komrad

    I think I’ve seen this graphic before.

  • Glad I could be of assistance. Keep up the great work, dude!

  • Anthony Garcia

    I wouldn’t knock The Expendables poster, atleast it looks good and not cartoony. With the news article, you have a 1911 with two triggers, hammer cocked back, firing bullets still in their cartridges and followed by little “motion” waves and an explosion coming out of the barrel. With the movie poster, some poor designer is locked in a cubicle somewhere and probably has to do mock ups of like 15 different posters for the same movie, mirroring the guns is definately faster. Also consider that from a design viewpoint, the layout of the poster is more symmetrical and pleasing to the eye if both sides look the same.