摄影器材 这可能是《时代周刊》杂志最烂封面照meme_百度百科

美国《时代周刊》是一本时事性杂志，而且它的封面照片选择水准一直受到摄影圈推崇，不过即将于8月17日上架的最新一期封面却引来大量负面评价，因为水平实在是有点低，甚至有大量媒体同行评论《时代》选错了照片。

这期封面人物是虚拟现实科技公司Oculus Rift创始人Palmer Luckey。照片中他带着一副虚拟现实眼镜悬在以海滩为背景的半空中。《时代》也许是为了展现Luckey置身虚拟世界的感觉，但无论拍照技术还是合成水平都无法传达出虚拟现实的理念。批评者认为，这张照片看上去像是PS菜鸟学生的作业，被拍者姿势让人难以理解，灯光生硬而普通，而且没有自然融入背景。总之就是烂透了。

然而更没想到的是，这张照片很快就变成PS高手手中的鲜肉素材meme，网上迅速涌现大量恶搞作品。

via：fstoppers

haha, i still can't believe that's a Time cover. I mean, great for your resume, just don't give them the tear sheet lol

Am I the only one who thinks that the whole point of the fake cover is that it's not reality, so they exaggerate that fact?

I agree. I don't think they were trying to make it look like he was actually on the beach. BUT I don't think that excuses every other horrible aspect of this image.

The sand looks fake because it's not real life. He's floating because it's not real life. He's in crappy wardrobe because the idea is that you do this from your living room at 2am on a Sunday.

This is a fair argument for the concept alone but I don't think it excuses such a poor execution. You could have someone floating without looking like an idiot. You could have someone dressed in average clothes without looking sloppy. You could make it obvious the background isn't "real" without looking like something out of the 1980s. I googled "virtual reality" and hundreds of pictures came up that conveyed your vision in a beautiful and compelling way. https://www.google.com/search?q=virtual+reality&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS570US570...

No I definitely get that, but it seems that the 2 options on either extreme are plausible - one, a gorgeous VR creation; two, an exaggerated concept of how VR never really feels real. I think they went with the latter deliberately, and I think they nailed it.

You feel that they nailed their intended goal but do you think this is a "good" image. Would you be proud of this? Would you allow this to be on the cover of your magazine. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm actually interested to know if you like this as a cover.

Oh I'm not saying they nailed their 'intended' goal - I'm just saying that it's perfectly plausible that this was their intended goal, that they don't look at it and say "GD that's beautiful!" And yes, if the story I was trying to tell in the image was "VR is here but it still doesn't feel real" then I'd absolutely let it be the cover.

We have games from 2004 in which the beach looks much more realistic and good.
Where in Virtual Reality book do we see that there are no shadows in VR ? :D
The pose... oh man... not even the worst model ever would pose like that, perhaps not even a totally amateur and clueless about portrait photography person would even pose his model like that :D

I've seen totally newbies doing elevation photography for the first time and coming with something way better than this.

Sports Illustrated also showcases lots of similar bad quality stuff the past few years... crooked horizons, the horizon at the beach cutting through a model's neck, non intuitive lighting.

I'd be surprised to find out that the photographer in case got paid for this :D

Again, if this was their goal - an exaggerated fakeness to convey that VR never really feels real - then they nailed it. And it's completely plausible that was their goal.

That's a conflicting point:

They say "something big that will change the world" and at the same time they imply that it feels very fake ?

( in reality by the way,  VR with Unreal Engine 4 looks very real-life-like )

Right but does it ever FEEL real? It's the Turing test isn't it?

It will change the world, but VR now is nowhere near as 'real' as it'll be in 10/20/30 years.

I believe the point has gone a bit over your floor of perception, ole buddy!
The oddity of the pose is similar to how wonderful it sounds when people sing with headphones on...It's always really, really bad - And LOUD RIGHT?
So this body positioning is awkward (to say the least) for the same reasons as singing is bad with headphones - Only he has WHOLE BODY HEADPHONES ON...
Dam, I can't imagine a world where all this stuff floats right by the level of perception...
I mean WTF do you look at when you see an image? The fStop for Christs sake ;) ?

If that is actually the concept, and it's a good idea, then it's just poorly executed because the idea needs to be taken further. If he's supposed to be at home, have him in a bathrobe and bunny slippers. If the beach is supposed to be virtual reality, then make it somewhat pixelated and looking distinctly unreal from him (as opposed to just 'slightly' unreal). If he's supposed to be floating/flying/not rooted on the ground, then REALLY take him off the ground plane by having his body in a more horizontal pose and his feet further away from the bottom of the picture plane, as opposed to looking like he might be jumping or balancing because his feet are too close to the bottom of the image, which to the eye begins to read as ground. I think that's the author's point: they could and should have done better, but this just reeks of amateur hour, from photography to design.

You're not, I think they intended the kid to look awkward, the beach to look as fake as possible and clearly not in the same world as the awkward kid. I really like that picture actually, Photoshopped images don't always have to look real, and especially when dealing with virtual stuff. Reminds me of Vanilla Sky and the obviously fake "Monet skies". Or when they break the fourth wall in the movies, they introduce reflexion on the supporting medium. Great picture!

Absolutely it's supposed to look fake!

How timely is this? Just yesterday while waiting in the doctor's office I picked up this issue of Time: http://time.com/3858353/the-great-pot-experiment/ and immediately I was struck by how bad the photoshopping was! So this isn't an isolated incident...

I can't see how bad it is from that image but that cover is a fantastic concept IMO. It immediately grabs your attention and it also tells a complete story.

I guess for the most part he's talking about the bad subject isolation ( masking ), look at the fur just above the right ( as we look at the picture ) leg.

Good concept, but the lighter and joint are sharper than the mouse and the lighter should be in shadow... Smoke around the masthead is well done. Here's a hi rez version.https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/final-pot-cover.jpg?quali...

Agreed, it's crap.  I mean fine, do something tongue-in-cheek if you're going to do a geeky virtual reality cover but make it GOOD.

If a publication like this doesn't value good photography/compositing/etc then you have to ask who does.

Lee, you should reach out to the photographer (Gregg Segal) and ask him to give his 2 cents. There's a lot of variables we don't know about like the AD's input. Maybe this was the exact look they were going for.

I totally agree Eric, I really think this was probably exactly the exaggerated 'fake' reality look they were going for.

I have no problem criticizing a huge publication but I try to stay away from criticizing individual photographers. That's why I didn't mention his name in the article. If he responds publicly I would be happy to post it but the internet is already giving this image such a hard time, I would hate to make his life even more difficult.

"...direction of the lighting in now way is realistic..."
Yeah, sad editing is everywhere!
But you may have been missing the virtual point - It isn't your daddies Time Magazine cover and 'kids' now-a-days couldn't care less about your ossified concepts of 'reality'.
VR is about accepting all those failings and embracing the 'larger' experience - Not getting bogged down at every turn complaining because "it doesn't look like a real version" of reality.
Headsets like these will be used to kill people on a beach from some remote location and the quality of the sand just isn't relevant. It isn't about aesthetics, it isn't about being mistaken for reality - The product will be marketed as an entertainment devise, but the real focus is the industrial/military potential and the gamers will simply finance that development as they are mesmerized by tuning out the real world and the sycophants composing the Tech media will simply cheer lead and drool as they distract us from the real point.

Jerry, you are my favorite commenter on Fstoppers. Your comments are always beautifully written and I have no clue what you are talking about. I look forward to your response.

Let me break it down for you...
There is no shadow depicted in the image because he's not there...Get it?
A camera can mimic or capture 'reality' - But, we know more often than not the photo doesn't 'look' like the scene looked to your eye, or to my eyes - Right?
VR is more like an edited perception (more limited) - So  an image that 'could be' mistaken for real, or hyper real wouldn't depict it very well.
We will always 'notice' a difference, so the aesthetic of the image represents 'that reality'.

So you like the cover?

I'm not a fan of VR and I'm not a partisan of blind little geeky cherubic rich guy rock stars floating around my real world, so I don't really think I am 'supposed to' like it.
The elements in the image that you find obnoxious are reflections of the subject - So it captures the isolation, the techno-fetish, the 'simplified' representations, the hack and paste approach to 'creating' a world and even the shear 'dumbness' of the endeavor itself.
Your chief complaint is that this cover of TIME isn't like most all the other covers of TIME and that basic conventions of photography are being blatantly ignored - And this is criminal dam it!!!! But I suggest that you try to see how these obvious artifacts create narrative...A narrative which recognizes and comments on the subject at the same time.

Bonus points: Why do you think the scene isn't set in some distopic MATRIX like Sci-Fi environment - Like so many of the 'alternative edits' chose to do?
You think this would be working on the cover of some Gamer Mag or some Hipster lifestyle magazine?

I completely disagree. Photographs are not analogous to virtual reality. There is no shifted perspective in a photograph; we always know we are looking at a captured image and are not actually present in that moment. Thus, we take no issue with regards to perception when a photograph does not directly mimic what the eye has seen. The *entire* point of virtual reality is the replacement of reality in a manner convincing to the point of suspension of disbelief. If one is consciously "noticing a difference," as you say, that suspension of disbelief is nonexistent and the conceptual basis of "virtual reality" is a failure.

本站部分内容、观点、图片、文字、视频来自网络，仅供大家学习和交流，真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺。如果本站有涉及侵犯您的版权、著作权、肖像权的内容，请联系我们(0536-8337192),我们会立即审核并处理。

我要评论

当前已有loading...个参与

验证码：

• 
  客片
• 
  工作花絮
• 
  照片
• 
  2025写真

• BIRTV 2023盛大开幕，西部数据携旗下全方位
• 游戏爆肝超爽体验，618 存储好物强势
• 融汇艺术与科技：西部数据针对传媒娱乐业推
• 京东7月数码相机销量榜出炉，松典相机稳居
• 全新徕卡SL3 徕卡新款全画幅无反相机现已发
• 天津东疆将迎房车露营盛会，十月黄金周开启
• 骁龙X Elite正式开启全新移动PC时代
• 索尼电影机助力未来电影人从FIRST到更广阔