Author Topic: Modern muscle mags don't like ARNOLD??? (Read 5378 times)

Pollux · « **on:** March 13, 2011, 07:18:53 PM »

I don't get it...

Everytime a muscle magazine, whether it's FLEX or Musclemag International, features Arnold on the cover they feel the need to photoshop him. WHY?! His physique/look has always been badass, yet they feel the need to photoshop him! We've already touched base before about how Musclemag photoshopped these 2 "recent" Arnold covers...

And now FLEX felt the need to photoshop their most recent Arnold cover by using 2 different body shots, if you will, by taking his upper body from one pic and photoshopping it to his lower body from another pic. Here's his original lower body pic...

The only magazine that did NOT photoshop Arnold on their cover was Muscular Development of all people, so I gotta give 'em props for that

STOP PHOTOSHOPPING ARNOLD ON YOUR COVER(S)!

saucetradomous · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:02:06 PM »

It's not that they're trying to make him look better or anything like that. They're just taking old pictures and making them feel new, because everyone has already seen those iconic pictures soo many times before. I do prefer the originals though.

TrueGrit · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:10:21 PM »

They photoshop every cover. In fact, virtually every single magazine cover in the world has had a good trip to photoshop ..

Heywood · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:14:25 PM »

Quote from: saucetradomous on March 13, 2011, 08:02:06 PM

It's not that they're trying to make him look better or anything like that. They're just taking old pictures and making them feel new, because everyone has already seen those iconic pictures soo many times before. I do prefer the originals though.

Adding size to the outer delts is making an old photo "feel new?"

Pollux · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:17:26 PM »

Quote from: saucetradomous on March 13, 2011, 08:02:06 PM

They're just taking old pictures and making them feel new, because everyone has already seen those iconic pictures soo many times before

That's your theory?

Seriously, using a totally different lower leg pic by adding "jeans" and modifying his body slightly (Musclemag) or taking one lower leg pic and adding it to a different upper body pic (FLEX) makes no sense. MAYBE I can buy Musclemag adding the jeans, but I don't get the whole modifying Arnold's body a bit or switching up body parts. LAME!

Pollux · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:18:58 PM »

Quote from: TrueGrit on March 13, 2011, 08:10:21 PM

They photoshop every cover. In fact, virtually every single magazine cover in the world has had a good trip to photoshop ..

Yeah, but we're talkin' about Arnold here. You seriously do NOT need to photoshop him!

dyslexic · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:20:37 PM »

If you were in the business of Commercial Graphic Arts, you would understand.

If you are "Photoshopping" everything else together (ads, dates, fonts, colors, etc.) throughout the mag, and that was your JOB, you would most definitely "enhance" your cover subject to some degree. The idea is to catch someone's eye enough to make them want to buy the mag. We are not talking about regulars, or subscribers, but people who normally would NOT buy a muscle mag rag.

Arnold seems to be nearly ubiquitous (as far as covers go) these days. More power to him... and the graphic artists.

Gotta make a living somehow.

Pollux · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:24:23 PM »

Quote from: dyslexic on March 13, 2011, 08:20:37 PM

If you are "Photoshopping" everything else together (ads, dates, fonts, colors, etc.) throughout the mag, and that was your JOB, you would most definitely "enhance" your cover subject to some degree. The idea is to catch someone's eye enough to make them want to buy the mag. We are not talking about regulars, or subscribers, but people who normally would NOT buy a muscle mag rag.

Then describe FLEX's Arnold cover if you're gonna go with that...

Krankenstein · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2011, 06:13:19 AM »

Quote from: TrueGrit on March 13, 2011, 08:10:21 PM

They photoshop every cover. In fact, virtually every single magazine cover in the world has had a good trip to photoshop ..

If you have never seen this, you will be AMAZED:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/734962/adobe_photoshop_from_fat_woman_to_thin_woman/

Hurricane Beef ! · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2011, 06:34:20 AM »

This is not shopped.

THE BEEF

hench · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2011, 06:42:42 AM »

It is, but only in the eyes, they changed the direction he was looking at, stupid!
The latest flex mag has even taken down the peak of his biceps with rubbish cropping.

Quote from: Hurricane Beef ! on March 14, 2011, 06:34:20 AM

This is not shopped.

THE BEEF

Hurricane Beef ! · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2011, 06:46:01 AM »

Quote from: hench on March 14, 2011, 06:42:42 AM

It is, but only in the eyes, they changed the direction he was looking at, stupid!
The latest flex mag has even taken down the peak of his biceps with rubbish cropping.

They just flipped the image you fool.

THE BEEF

hench · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:40:48 AM »

Fraid not.

Original flipped on the right, looking in a totally different direction

Quote from: Hurricane Beef ! on March 14, 2011, 06:46:01 AM

They just flipped the image you fool.
THE BEEF

Ron · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:44:25 AM »

All muscle magazines love Arnold - when he is on their covers, people buy them in the stores.

As for being 'photoshopped' - all covers and many pictures are enhanced. Clean out the wrinkles, make it brighter. If you are indicating that they expand the muscles, now that is a different story.

Pollux · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2011, 10:02:05 AM »

Hahaha! Thank you Hench for pointing out Hurricane Beef's ignorance! You beat me to it!

JasonH · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2011, 10:07:51 AM »

Quote from: hench on March 14, 2011, 09:40:48 AM

Fraid not.

Original flipped on the right, looking in a totally different directionion

Wonder why they messed with his eyes - I prefer the original - it has more of that Arnold arrogance and superiority.

OneMoreRep · « **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2011, 10:12:15 AM »

Quote from: Ron on March 14, 2011, 09:44:25 AM

As for being 'photoshopped' - all covers and many pictures are enhanced. Clean out the wrinkles, make it brighter. If you are indicating that they expand the muscles, now that is a different story.

Bullshit Ron, you've NEVER photoshopped any of your pictures.

You have to admit, with today's inclination towards photoshop use, there is very little that can be said about a photographer's true skill. Hell, if I don't like the size of Arnold's crotch area, let me go ahead and use photoshop to bulk it up and give me the true picture my heart desire.

BULLSHIT Yaroni..

"1"

Dr Dutch · « **Reply #17 on:** March 14, 2011, 01:27:31 PM »

The put that 202 guy, forgot his name, on the MD cover with 25 inch arms or something. It looked stupid.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #18 on:** March 14, 2011, 01:45:49 PM »

Hurricane Beef ! · « **Reply #19 on:** March 14, 2011, 08:19:17 PM »

Quote from: Pollux on March 14, 2011, 10:02:05 AM

Hahaha! Thank you Hench for pointing out Hurricane Beef's ignorance! You beat me to it!

ROFL . . . blow THE BEEF

THE BEEF

johnny1 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:28:22 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on March 14, 2011, 01:45:49 PM

Thats the ORIGINAL in the CORRECT format, thankyou ND.

johnny1 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:29:21 PM »

Quote from: hench on March 14, 2011, 09:40:48 AM

Fraid not.

Original flipped on the right, looking in a totally different direction

Thats not the Original Your Picture is FLIPPED