The Weekly Edit: Who Shot it Better?

- - The Daily Edit




Creative Director: Kari Young
Production Director: Juli Roos
Photographer: J-Squared Photography




Design+ Photography Director: Hannah McCaughey
Art Director: John McCauley
Photo Editor: Amy Silverman
Photographer: Carlos Serrao




Creative Director: Lan Yin Bachelis
Art Director: Brant Louck
Photo Director: Jo Miller
Photo Editor: Allison Chin
Photographer: Matt Jones

Heidi Volpe

There Are 20 Comments On This Article.

  1. None as they all have their own style of image for their cover so readers can pick it out on the newsstands. That is the business reality of a cover shot. I’ve shot a few covers in my time and would love to have done several differently, and would have been totally capable of doing so at the same expense, but as most publications cover style is very restrictive I wasn’t allowed. I would also suggest that the angle of the articles is different so different images are required.

  2. No contest. Outside nailed it. The other two fail the one-second test: We don’t know who this is other than “pretty lady” in those. The Outside cover says Good Looking Bad-@ss. Win.

    • I’m not even sure Health manages “pretty lady”—it’s more “BREASTS!”, especially once you layer on the rather unfortunate cover design.

      (Not laying the blame on that one with the photographer; judging from his portfolio and the prolifity of that cover style, he was undoubtedly shooting to client spec.)

  3. I agree that Outside nailed the shot. The others look more like stock photography of a lifestyle model than cover photos. From a design perspective, though, the two-tone yellow/orange of the Outside logo needs to go. Sticks out like a sore thumb, and spoils the great photograph.

  4. Sure, “Outside” is going to be the traffic-stopper, but each one is appropriate for its publication. You can’t use the “Outside” shot for “Women,” or vice versa.

    • Excellent point. As someone whose attention is often caught by Outside covers, I found this one dull and a bit cold. There seems to be a miscommunication between the cover lines and the photo. In terms of a successful unity between the magazine (content, theme, copy) and the image, I’d give it to Women.

  5. In my opinion I gravitate toward the cover of “women,” because of the expression in the portrait and it feels more intimate. Sure it’s “pretty lady,” but even if I know who it was, id go for that one if all three magazines were at a check stand. They don’t all have to be environmental portraits, and I’m over the de-saturated Outside grey thing and the last one looks wooden to me. The first one to me says to me, “who is the woman behind the athletic achievements,” which is appealing to me.

  6. scott Rex Ely

    Great selection for comparison.
    I like the cool tonality,her simple gestures and body position in the “Outside” cover.
    Though, it is nice to know what color her eyes are and the “Women”cover lets that part of her shine.
    Kind of wacky type on the “Health” cover. Drop two sizes and you get. . . HER bod?

  7. Interesting comments. Totally male/female stereotypes. For what I can tell most men gravitated to Outside and some women to Woman. Health is just ugly cover all around- it’s all about her boobs…(surprisingly enough none of the men mention that- maybe they thought it?)
    I include myself in liking the Woman cover. Even with her suit in the Outside cover I had to read who she was, so is that “failing,” not really. She looks different in all the images, so I guess most people would have to look at her name to recognize her.
    This “who shot it best” is a toss up since the magazines audiences are so different and different styles are needed. Again with the market research…

  8. nobody shot it better. i see a beauty shot, a dramatic portrait, and a mass appeal portrait. i’ve been hired for editorials where i got to do whatever i wanted, and i’ve been hired for ad jobs where i had to match a tear sheet almost exactly. what you have here is 3 photographers working with 3 creative teams to make the best content for their respective audiences.

  9. I actually think that all 3 fit the publication perfectly. The Women cover is fantastic. I’m also a huge fan of Carlos Serrao, and it takes some guts to shoot that white suit on a white background. If anything that shot is a little too Outsidey for me though.

  10. (The Outside cover is slightly more exceptional) I think all of the shots were what the publication asked for. Question is, why? It seems to me that a cover image should grab your collar while your walking by and say ‘Woo Hoo! Look at Me!” Are any of these shots so interesting that a NEW reader might want to pick up the publication and see whats going on inside? Hmmm… not really. These are the type of magazines covers that I see crammed at the beginning of the check-out line. They look so much alike that I just skip over them. Well, maybe not the boob shot. I’m not blind.

    • joe partridge

      This is a really relevant comment on editors and art directors rather than photographers. By the look of the pix the photographers have delivered what was wanted. It’s just that, as Terry Manier writes, what was wanted was not very exciting. As Alexi Brodovitch reputedly said to his photographers – ‘Astonish me!’ Nothing very astonishing here.

  11. Woman. All day long.

    Health looks so damn mainstream that I might puke. Slim down for your mom. What. Ever.

    Outside cover is intriguing. Tells the sporty woman story.

    Soft face. Cheek highlights. That tiny bit of teeth visible. Win for Woman.

  12. Oof…they’re all pretty brutal, but I guess not everyone can be Bloomberg Bizweek. Just sad what becomes of cover layout when there’s SO MUCH VALUABLE CONTENT TO ADVERTISE.

  13. Remove the cover text and the only one that says ‘athlete’ is the Outside cover image. That cover actually did catch my eye on a news stand recently. The other 2 could be covers on 100 other women’s magazines. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…