Hello Magazine Cover photo

pixbyjohn

Latest cover of Hello Magazine has a photo of Prince Harry and his girlfriend Chelsy. The photo of Chelsy is dreadful, are standards dropping ?
What do you think ?

oshead

Linky???

pixbyjohn

oshead wrote: »

Linky???

Don't have link, I just saw the Mag at the newsagents.

rowanh

http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes//celebrities/201005103471/teaser/issue/1123/0-8-15/8015-z.jpg

Is that it?

homerun_homer

Sure what do you expect from a glossy version of a tabloid full of self indulgent, fluff articles. Many of the photos are repetitive, generic photo shoots while the rest is usual trashy tabloid fodder.

I wouldn't waste time worrying about it.

pixbyjohn

homerun_homer wrote: »

Sure what do you expect from a glossy version of a tabloid full of self indulgent, fluff articles. Many of the photos are repetitive, generic photo shoots while the rest is usual trashy tabloid fodder.

I wouldn't waste time worrying about it.

Have you seen the photo ? Honestly I am not worried about it but it is not the usual high glam photo usually seen on the cover.

pixbyjohn

rowanh wrote: »

http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes//celebrities/201005103471/teaser/issue/1123/0-8-15/8015-z.jpg

Is that it?

Yes thats the one, her face has been given very bad processing.

AnimalRights

Gimmie Kate Middleton anyday.....lol at thread btw.

daycent

There's one of Sandra Bullock and her son in the current issue of Hello that's shockingly bad. Loads of motion blur and oversharpened in an attempt to compensate. Can't find a link but if you have a look at the magazine you'll know which one I'm on about...

melekalikimaka

i wouldn't worry personally... like looking at one fat girl and thinking all women are getting ugly...

Eirebear

wow...really?

Publications like "Hello" are responsible for wha we now know as "papparazi".

Are standards slipping?

No.

Effects

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Yes thats the one, her face has been given very bad processing.

That's how her face looks. She always goes over the top with the makeup and fake tan.

pixbyjohn

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i wouldn't worry personally... like looking at one fat girl and thinking all women are getting ugly...

What was that about ?

paulydub

Its a cheap issue there selling it for £1. maybe thats why the poor photos.

Thecageyone

Effects wrote: »

That's how her face looks. She always goes over the top with the makeup and fake tan.

That was my thinking looking at it. More like they didn't process the image and showed how terrible she can look.

WHo cares anyhow? It's a magazine for numpties.

AnCatDubh

I suspect that standards aint dropping but a carefully selected marketing strategy

Prince Harry + Girlfriend Chelsey = lots of sales = £££££££££

Its like the Irish tabloids - put a killer on the front page and sales go through the roof.

I agree - pretty awful shot of lesser "quality" than what they normally produce.

Covey

Can someone explain what the fuss is about ? The photo looks grand to me

Thecageyone

Same here.

I think it's people are used to seeing more shiney glam images on those covers? That shot is just ... plain. Hardy terrible.

32finn

Its a candid shot caught on the fly! no big lighting set up for the glam shots that they mostly put on the cover. Dont see the big deal........

pixbyjohn

Covey wrote: »

Can someone explain what the fuss is about ? The photo looks grand to me

Covey, there is no fuss. I made an observation on a photo on the cover of a mag.