They say you can't judge a book by its cover, even if the book is about photography and the cover is a photograph.
Thanks to Max, original is here!
The Digital Photography Book: Reflections? Pah!
They say you can't judge a book by its cover, even if the book is about photography and the cover is a photograph.
Thanks to Max, original is here!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
You've got to admire the irony, I suppose :D
The brand of that Nikon SLR film camera is 'Digital'. Where can I get my old Nikon slr converted to digital?
Arrg ! Amazing!
My brain is hurting trying to make sense of that veritable dog's dinner... check out the bit just under the flash cards.
Does it also include the step-by-step secrets for how to make your photos look like the cover photo?
The conflicting perspective of the body+flash and the separate lens hurts my eyes.
Ouch.
Scott Kelby is a respected person in the photography world. Maybe someone needs to ask Scott what went wrong here. Hopefully he had nothing to do with this cover.
I see nothing wrong with this... what is everyone looking at?
I too wonder why Scott Kelby's book cover would look like this.
Either Scott wasn't around for this decision or was drunk when making it, I hope it was the first.
Maybe those memory cards are the new fangled floating ones that have a tendency to disort the shadows of nearby objects. Kinda like the Optical Illusion meets Prism-Like Black Hole concept.
The camera, the mem cards, and the standing lens are all three on different ground planes.
For one thing, look at the reflection of the lens. Just to the left of it is a button or switch. On the actual camera, there's no such item.
For one, the reflections of the camera lens and the one that is standing don't line up properly.
There also appears to be something being "reflected" from the lower left of the camera that simply isn't on the camera, or is higher up.
Forget the reflections for a minute. Since when do attached lenses point a different direction than the barrel of the lens, or the body of the camera, for that matter? It's bent upwards like a dropped beer can or something...
Either that, or it's made of putty so you can bend it in different directions, maybe?
In any case-- ugh.
This is a book about photography - why not use a *photograph*? Are there no more photographers in the world? Does everything have to be created in Photoshop from spare parts? Did we learn nothing from the novel *Frankenstein*?
The original link leads to an Amazon See Inside, where you learn that the author publishes a Photoshop magazine. Okay...
I think the camera and the lens sets were in the same perspective, it is just they forced the reflection of the camera to touch the lens in the front, so it looks like they are in a different perspective... the additional len? well, that is not justifiable.
you always know the right thing to say!............................................................
Thanks a lot for sharing! it was really awesome post!
I always love to read your blog post!
wow this is horrible :-(
somehow it doesn't appear here :
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/55/7a/b314810ae7a034c2a2ba0210.L.jpg
(the "copyrighted material" thingy)
The best reflection catastrophe yet. Priceless.
I have this book and never took much time to look at the cover, don't judge it from it. The information on it is very valuable and Scott Kelby is one of those people who knows a LOT and explains it in a simple way.
My favourite bit is that the reflection of the body is clearly an entirely different model - check out how the reflection of the body has a lens-release button, but the body itself doesn't!
Beautiful stuff.
Hi Gang:
Ouch---you totally got me on this one. Although I didn't design the cover, I did approve it (and of course, I never really noticed the reflection problem).
Luckily, the book is about to be reprinted, so I'll make darn sure that we fix that reflection before it goes off to press this time.
Thanks for pointing that out (except for the fact that every time I look at that cover now, all I'll see is that messed up reflection). ;-)
All my best,
-Scott Kelby
A Man with Reflective Issues
Isn't Scott Kelby the president of the National Association of Photoshop Professionals?
ooooohhhh!!!!
I didn't know there was a camera line called "DIGITAL"
(being sarcastic)
Kudos to Scott Kelby for his comment.
HA. What's worse is there are at least 3-4 volumes of this series from Kelby, all with similar covers, just a different color background :)
In fact, the nonlinearity of the lens (as pointed out by someone) reminds me of a workmate's 100-300mm telezoom lens back in 1990 which definitely pointed a little around the corner and definitely did not work anymore (even though the glass was OK). The owner claimed he had done nothing else than dropping the lens to the bottom of a yacht's cockpit.
My cameraa can do that.
Yah, definitely a hat tip to the author for showing up and wanting to fix it on the next release. Hold onto the earlier releases, they'll be like misprinted stamps--collector's items!
Very big of Scott Kelby to admit mistake.
Others would probably slapped u with cease and desist order.
Sincere props to Scott Kelby for not being Ralph Lauren.
I wouldn't blame Scott Kelby for this.
As a 3-time author, I can tell you: Authors have virtually no control over the cover materials. The author probably didn't even have a say regarding the cover photo.
Boss: We don't need the lights, but we got a camera, and we need some action. So make it look like the camera is not actually there, it's sort of there, you can see it, but the 'action' makes it look like it's moving, or bending, or distorting the fabric of time itself.
Worker: Er, i'm not really following you sir...
My girlfirend's Digital camera can do that.
You're doing wrong in comparing it with other brands like 'Nikon' and 'Canon' - it's a totally different breed; like homeschooled owls. This should give you a different reflection.
Scott - are you still there? I'm really impressed you've chipped in. While you're at it, you're the perfect person to answer the eternal photoshopdisasters question: would it really not have been easier just to take a photograph? Any enlightenment gratefully received.
Ouch. Scott is awesome, PLEASE don't blame him. I work for him, and I designed this. He's often too busy to scrutinize everything that comes out of our very busy company. You guys got me good. In my small defense, my PS skills have improved since 2007. Hopefully enough that I NEVER see my work here again. :-(
Has every single corporation forgotten that you can take pictures of a whole images instead of just seperate objects?
And, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that camera a film one?
It's typical that the biggest names hire people with the least experience for work. Why because they're cheapskates. This blog is full of pros who point out problems to our bosses but they don't care and simply send them off. That's why we're seeing more and more bad images out there. I just don't know how we can compete with so many cheap asses out there.
It's typical that the biggest names hire people with the least experience for work. Why because they're cheapskates. This blog is full of pros who point out problems to our bosses but they don't care and simply send them off. That's why we're seeing more and more bad images out there. I just don't know how we can compete with so many cheap asses out there.
thats not a lens release button, that might be a DOF preview button, if its a Nikon the release if about half way up the other side of the lens. My D80 has the DOF button in the position shown.
the incorrect details are so tiny, are we sure this isn't anal retentive photoshop blips?
Wow, Kudos to Scott for 'fessing up. I love the book, but he so deserved this. There really is no excuse for this.
Post a Comment