Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jul 09, 2010 at 10:30 AM -0400, Ric Carter wrote: > But, as George has said several times, illustration IS what the magazine > ALWAYS does, and what it's readers expect. True. And it could have easily been explained in the inside cover with a "Original photo by ______. Illustration/editing by ______." Which probably actually WAS in the magazine, negating my original statement. Something like that is easy to do, and helps prevent things from being misinterpreted to those who care to dig beyond the surface. I guess in my field (science) when we publish things, we are expected to explain all of the pertinent details, even when they are obvious. That way there are no misunderstandings (hopefully). Take something simple like error bars. They represent error, no? However, there are several different kinds of error/variance that they can be used to show, and it's just easier to write a sentence explaining how they are calculated and what variance they show rather than leave it up to assumption. Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference to me in this case. I googled "economist covers" and looked at the image results. 99% of the ones that came up were indeed obviously illustrations. One photo cover was of Bill and Hillary Clinton waving, arms around each other. Presumably that had some heavy photoshopping too? :D