Phil Monahan
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hope you allow international photos??
Of course. Any and all are welcome. Doubt we’ll be using much tigerfish or payara, though.
John,
I think you can nix any of your own photos from the list at any time. There’s a little X button that deletes images.
That said, I’d like to add a couple of caveats:
1. I reserve the right to delete any images that I don’t think are up-to-snuff. This is not meant as an insult to the photographer, but as a way to maximize the effectiveness of the archive. Please do not take it personally, and if you want to know why I’ve nixed one of your images, I’ll be glad to discuss it.
2. Since I made this a very public offering, who knows who’s going to get involved, so I reserve the right to ban anyone who abuses the archive in any way. To tell you the truth, I’m not even sure what someone could do–upload porn or offensive material, I guess–but I want it to be clear up front that I hold that power.
That said, I’m excited by the prospect of bringing a whole new group of shooters into AA.
Good luck!
Phil
Might I ask if there is a way we can see your back issue covers?
Here’s all the 2008 covers: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29518378@N07/
Pretty much everything John says here is spot on. I thought I might also explain how we end up with a particular image on the cover:
1. We put out a photo call and receive LOTS of submissions, the vast majority of which we can disqualify immediately, for all of the reasons I’ve used in this thread.
2. Once we’ve got the list narrowed to the images that are technically, seasonally, and compositionally appropriate, everyone on the editorial and art staff picks 4 favorites.
3. From comparing these lists, we get a sense of which two or three images appeal to the most people, so we mock those up.
4. From the mockups, Steve Walburn and I choose the cover.That said, there are times when one image trumps the process, as is the case with the cover that’s on newsstands now. We got the shots of Carter Andrews with a 13-pound brown and said, “That’s a cover.” Done. No photo call necessary. In that we case, we actually built a feature article around the cover image.
When it comes to actually shooting, there’s no substitute for extensive coverage: if you’ve got something set up that might be a cover, shoot as many frames as you can. That increases the chances that you’ll get something just right. That little red jacket in the background of John’s photo is a good example.
I discovered very early on that it’s almost impossible to fish AND shoot pictures, so now I try to travel with a photographer–usually my high school buddy Sandy Hays. When he is in a situation where he thinks a really good photo is possible, he likes to say he’s going to “hose it down,” meaning shoot if from every angle, bracketed, etc.
I am perfectly willing to look at any and all future submissions, but I ask that you evaluate your own shots carefully before you send them to me. Using what you’ve learned from this thread, ask yourself if the shot really works as a cover.
Thanks,
Phil
Yup. Came to Denton to go to school, and except for a few lost years in Southern California, have been here ever since. Not a true local although I married into a local family. shannon
I’ve never been to Denton, but I’m a fan for two reasons:
1. Slobberbone
2. “The Best-Ever Death Metal Band Out of Denton” by the Mountain GoatsPhil
By this point, it should be clear just how hard it is to find good cover photography, and this is why magazines so often fall back on the same old g-n-g format. We’re out of time on this cover call, so thanks to all who participated. I’ll let you know what we ultimately come up with.
Should any of you, whether through design or dumb luck, shoot something that you think would work on a cover (keeping in mind all my objections to images in this thread) please don’t hesitate to send it to me.
Phil
Eric’s is a cool shot, but I think it’s a little too abstract. You have to look at it for a couple seconds before it makes sense. Plus, so little is actually in focus, it’s tough to work around.
Bill, I still think that’s a great shot, but now that I see it big, I’m not so sure it’s a cover. The angler is, as you put it, the weak spot. Plus the background is very busy.
J.Kwasney #1: (I dunno the aspect ratio; standard, I guess) This pic has nothing to grab the viewer.
J.Kwasney #2: The fish comes in at a bad angle for a cover, plus it looks as if it’s screaming “Ouch!”
J.Kwasney #3: Cool shot, but focus is soft (perhaps because of the water). Plus, it just isn’t “grabby” enough.
J.Kwasney #4: ditto above, plus fish is too high in frame.
J.Kwasney #5: Nice shot, but that front lighting is super hot, the angler is too high in the frame, and there are so many competing colors and textures in the shot that it confuses the eye a bit.
J.Kwasney #6: No fly shots on AA.
J.Kwasney #7: Horizontal
J.Kwasney #8: too abstractBill Blake #1: Great shot! Do you have more from this series? It wouldn’t work for this cover, but I’d consider it the future. Of course, we’d have to flop it, which might create some problems. The big problem with this is=mage is that it’s not tight enough on the figures.
Bill Blake #2: Great shot, but angler is from behind.
Bill Blake #3: Very nice. I wouldn’t mind seeing that in hi-res, although I suspect a lot of work would have to be done on the lighting. Angler looks very dark.NEW RULES: I won’t bother to comment on images that are obviously not appropriate, the right shape, etc. Please read through the thread to learn what I’m talking about.
Thanks to all for the submissions.
Phil
Lee #1: Image is too tall, plus there’s no fly rod, which is a problem.
Lee #2: Poor, poor fishy. As a catch-and-release-promoting magazine, we have to be careful that the fish we show on the cover look happy and reay to go back in the water. Plus, the central focus in the frame is too high.
Lee #3: As with a lot of these, it shows an angler’s BACK, when the front is so much more compelling. I like the image a lot, though.
Lee #4: Not a very attractive fish, being squeezed pretty hard. Plus the way the fish’s mouth and net intersect isn’t very contrasty (to coin a word).
Lee #5: Light is too hot, image fills too much of the frame.
Matt#1: Nice image, but the center of the frame is kind of a void. On a cover, this would look like a black hole.
Matt #2: Nice shot, but again, showing the back of an angler. It doesn’t draw the viewer IN to see a figure from behind.
Mike A #1: Pretty, but way too dark with not enough contrast.
Mike #1: A little gauzy for my taste. And from behind. And pretty static.
John #1: I kinda like this one. Unfortunately, that person in the red is so distracting, you look right past the two figures in the foreground. (Or at least I do.) The shot would work better as a cover if the guy on the left weren’t turned quite so far away from the camera.
Mike #2: Not the kind of image that’s gonna cause a guy to cross a room for a closer look.
Wes #1: Very cool lighting, but I’m not sure that that’s proper casting technique. ;D Plus the figure is too dark.
Wes #2 and #3: Too dark and from behind.
Wes #4: Very cool. Not a cover, though. What kind of fish is that?
Olle,
It’s a great idea. Unfortunately, it is beyond my meager technical abilities. If anyone else can make this happen (I’m talking to you Kevin), feel free.
P
Here we go, in order of posting since my last post (you might want to open this in another window, so you can follow along as you look at the images):
Morsie,
I like that one a lot, too, although not for winter.
Doug 0546cv,
That’s cool framing, but I think the image is probably way too dark, which is why you processed it so much in the earlier version, I’m sure.
John,
That’s a great shot, especially with the fly so prominently displayed. The hand might create some problems with the logo. It’s a little conventional, but I’d certainly consider it for a future cover.
Jacob,
The first shot is nice, but the figure is too small and doesn’t contrast well enough against the water. From across the room, you might not even be able to see him.
The second one, the figure is way too small and too high in the frame.
Winter Fishing2 is nice. We’d need to flop it, but I’d like to see that in hi-res. The snow on the fish makes it unique enough for consideration.
Winter fishing 4, the guy fills way too much of the frame. No room for logo or cover lines.
Guy walking away in snow: too abstract. Doesn’t grab the eye from across the room.
Winter fishing 6: figure too small again.
Morsie: Great stuff, but we don’t generally do salt covers on AA, and the others aren’t seasonally appropriate. Where is that shot with the guy on the jeep? Is that fresh or salt?
Doug (westay_winter1): Whoowoo that’s a brand-new vest. The shot is a little static, and this guy doesn’t scream “experienced angler.” Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know, but impressions are everything on the cover.
Jay, a muskie won’t appeal to anglers in many parts of the country. And the rainbow shot, while artsy, isn’t sharp enough. The brown is beautiful, but not a cover: no fly, smallish fish, tough to get cover lines and logo around it.
Jacob (winter 8): again, figure too small and not enough contrast. That black water is gorgeous, though, and cover lines would really POP against it.
Aaron gets extra points for mocking a cover, but that image is way too tall. Our actual logo would eat the hand, reel, and part of the head. Plus all the action is at the extremes of the image, rather than near the middle, where the eye wants to go.
Corey: In image 1, the angler is lost against that dark bank. Image two the figure is too small, and blends into the trees too much. Image three, however, I like: good color, and obvious story, room for cover lines. I just don’t know if it’s too tall. Please send hi-res!
David, I like a little more meat on my women. ; )
Bryan #1: Great shot, but the figure is too small. The background where the logo would be is also very busy.
Bryan #1: very pretty, but a little too conventional for my taste these days. I’ve already done that cover 5 times.
Bryan #3: To paraphrase Bernie Taupin: Hold me closer, tiny angler!
As I hope you’re seeing here, finding a cover shot (and taking a cover shot) is a bitch One thing to keep in mind is that the cover of a magazine serves one purpose and one purpose only—to get someone to pick up the magazine off the rack. Once he’s picked it up, we hook him with the cover lines and table of contents and flip-through quality. The cover means NOTHING to subscribers, who have already paid for the magazine and know what’s inside. The cover is meant to cut through the clutter of all the other magazines on the newsstand and instantly appeal to the target audience.
Morsie,
That is a great image! Is it cropped, or is there more on the left? Unfortunately, this wouldn’t work for the winter cover, but I’d consider it for the future.
Corey,
I don’t mind doing it this way. I figure I can better teach the lot of you what works and what doesn’t. If you could all post the way Morsie does, where the whole image is visible, I’d appreciate it.
On the other hand, feel free to send me a contact sheet, as well.
P
Doug,
The super-high contrasty stuff doesn’t do it for me. It looks kinda like when they do “day for night” in the movies. However, I like this shot:
Zach,
Morsie’s shot would have to be flopped because magazine cover lines go along the left-hand edge of the cover. Think of how magazines are stacked on the newsstand in a place like Borders. For many, only the left-hand edge of the cover is visible, because the rest of the magazine is tucked under the magazine to the right of it. In fly shops, we usually get full-face display, where you can see the whole cover, but other outlets don’t have the same amount of space per mag.
Both of Rob’s shots are nice, but I don’t think either would make a good cover. here’s why:
#1: The figures are too small and too low in the frame, they’re both facing away from the viewer without a focus (like a fly, a rise, etc.), the rod is blurred, and the background at the top (where the logo goes) is very busy and distracting.
#2: the best part of the shot (the rises) will be underneath the logo. The contrast in the right half of the shot is too low–everything is too dark—and too high in the left—everything is blown out. A cover needs to be visible from across the room.
Thanks for the submission. Please keep in mind that good cover shots are very rare, and we go through this same critiquing process with the best photographers in the business. Just because i reject an image doesn’t mean it’s not a great image.
Phil