They were indeed the best years. Looks like Wilbert only started buying just as it was going down the nick.
Dibble.
Paul Raymond magazine covers
-
Wilbert
Re: Paul Raymond magazine covers
You could be right there I think. The first year or so was good but quickly they got pretty ropey.Officer Dibble wrote:
-
Matt Berry @ Knave
Re: Paul Raymond magazine covers
As the editor of Knave (not Paul Raymond title) for the last couple of years, I've noticed this trend in their covers as well, and can fully understand why the drawn-on panties/dotted nipples thing happens so often...
Editors are sent dozens of sets per week to look at, and of those you're lucky if one contains any shots that are suitable for use on the cover undoctored. Naturally we all want the cover shot to feature a beautiful girl posing sexily, while at the same time conforming to certain technical requirements (allowing space for coverlines being the most obvious). With that in mind, it's a pretty tempting option to draw on a pair of panties or whatever to render an otherwise unusable cover shot suitable.
I suspect that in the old days, however, more editors were present at shoots, and could therefore ensure a selection of suitable shots which would not require doctoring. Whenever we get the chance to shoot in-house (and that is very infrequently these days) it always becomes apparent how much simpler things become when you can direct the shoot yourself.
That said, since I've been editing Knave I don't think we've significantly doctored a single cover shot ? certainly we've drawn on no panties nor dotted out any nipples. It makes things a bit more challenging, of course, but - for the time being at least - we're resisting the lure of the Photoshop palette.
Any comments would be most welcome.
Matt Berry,
Knave.
Editors are sent dozens of sets per week to look at, and of those you're lucky if one contains any shots that are suitable for use on the cover undoctored. Naturally we all want the cover shot to feature a beautiful girl posing sexily, while at the same time conforming to certain technical requirements (allowing space for coverlines being the most obvious). With that in mind, it's a pretty tempting option to draw on a pair of panties or whatever to render an otherwise unusable cover shot suitable.
I suspect that in the old days, however, more editors were present at shoots, and could therefore ensure a selection of suitable shots which would not require doctoring. Whenever we get the chance to shoot in-house (and that is very infrequently these days) it always becomes apparent how much simpler things become when you can direct the shoot yourself.
That said, since I've been editing Knave I don't think we've significantly doctored a single cover shot ? certainly we've drawn on no panties nor dotted out any nipples. It makes things a bit more challenging, of course, but - for the time being at least - we're resisting the lure of the Photoshop palette.
Any comments would be most welcome.
Matt Berry,
Knave.
-
Dave
Re: Paul Raymond magazine covers
In the early 1980's i did my work experince at Artisian Press in Leicester. I was a young 18 yr old and watched with interest the artists retouching the films for Mayfair. All "pink" areas were "taken out" with a blur and darkened etc.
Oh how its all changed !
Cheers
Oh how its all changed !
Cheers
-
Mayfair/MensWorld Editor
Re: Paul Raymond magazine covers
With all due respect to my former colleague, Matt, playing around with covers and so forth costs a fair chunk of change, and is not popular with a number of people as a result.
Speaking as an editor, I found it very, very limiting to not have the option of blobbing out nipples etc. on covers, since so few snappers shoot the 'perfect' cover shot without having their hands held.
If you're in a position where you have two possible cover shots, one of a munter in good lingerie with everything covered, and one of a stunner with her giblets hanging out, most of us will ask our repro people to start drawing pants!
Speaking as an editor, I found it very, very limiting to not have the option of blobbing out nipples etc. on covers, since so few snappers shoot the 'perfect' cover shot without having their hands held.
If you're in a position where you have two possible cover shots, one of a munter in good lingerie with everything covered, and one of a stunner with her giblets hanging out, most of us will ask our repro people to start drawing pants!
-
SOHO Mag
Re: Paul Raymond magazine covers
As my esteemed colleague David points out, sometimes it's a necessary evil. No matter how many times I tell photographers to shoot cover shots specifically, they never do, even though there's a financial incentive to do so, so you're left scraping around for something appropriate. Also, as Matt alluded, it's easier to get a cover if you attend a shoot and direct the photographer, but that' s no easy feat - in a crowded marketplace, competing with the internet, porn mags get harder and harder to edit. By all accounts, it used to be a piece of piss. As for me, I haven't made it to the pub one afternoon so far this year, so I must be working too hard!
-
Wilbert
Re: Paul Raymond magazine covers
Maybe if you used real cover pictures your magazines would stand out more from the crowd and sell more?