Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: COVER OF TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference? [View all]NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)56. Seriously. Not a good mag by a moonshot.
and too damn glossy for toilet paper, as well.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
COVER OF TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference? [View all]
kpete
Dec 2011
OP
They also darkened the eyes and the area around the eyes to make her look different
LiberalEsto
Dec 2011
#1
They darkened all the shadows and folds, like under her chin area where the bandana is...
snooper2
Dec 2011
#65
By using only one person and changing that person from American to Muslim (illustion) they are
peacetalksforall
Dec 2011
#20
No. They changed her outfit -hiding her exposed skin, darkened her coloring, made her look angrier
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#66
to be honest, I noticed they covered up her skin and felt it was for just that reason
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#57
they kept the beanie, but covered up her skin. and made her darker and angrier looking
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#61
I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about in reference to her brow.
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2011
#67
you don't see- the angle and length of the brows are more extreme. which gives a more sinister look
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#71
I agree on all counts and I would wager that for every person reading the article, a hundred or
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#73
and editors are very aware of this, yep. and most of us here wouldn't be swayed but conservative
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#77
Trying to keep OWS out of it and really making the person more "Terrorist-like". Thank you for
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#4
yes in very small letters where as the picture of the girl the drawing came from had 99% on her
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#25
I agree it's scarier than the original and all highlighted on a blood red background.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#32
no, it's graphic art done to spec. the editors would decide if the 99% remains
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#58
In publishing the artists do not ever get the last say. Not my fault if you assumed otherwise
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#60
Fer chrissakes, it's TIME! May as well criticize Juggs for showing naked breasts.
saras
Dec 2011
#12
Kick for the exposure of photographic manipulation by a major news corporation &R (nt)
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#31
No, he doesn't. You don't remember the redo of his famous Obama HOPE poster?
SidDithers
Dec 2011
#39
No, Time Magazine hates the OWS movement, Shepard Fairey was just hired by them to do the cover.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#35
I'm not disputing that, it's not a question of the artist's support, it's a question of
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#47
What I take away from this post is someone's angry because they don't think OWS big enough "props".
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2011
#54
Nice drawing. Very appropriate. Could be American, Greek, Spanish, Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan, etc.
Prometheus Bound
Dec 2011
#72
Not to mention the exposed skin around the neck as was observed upthread. n/t
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#75