tigerrouge
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,881
- Reaction score
- 9,703
Just got my subscription copy, the UK version has 112 pages.
I don't know that much about her, so I don't have the compensation of being a fan, where you welcome anything with them on the cover.
I also don't hate the cover - I always like seeing someone new on the front of Vanity Fair - but because the cover image has a deliberate blurry or dreamy look, I feel it looks worse in print than as a scan.
Usually glossiness adds dimension to digital images, but when the original cover image isn't sharp enough, the glossiness only seems to emphasise the indistinct elements and makes them seem lacking.
I can see what they were going for, but it's just not going to be joining my VF Hall of Fame (also, the issue is so thin, you could probably push it through the side of a closed door).
I imagine there'll be many Charli XCX fans buying a copy for their collection, and not caring for any of the articles inside, which are mostly about the art world, a niche area at the best of times.
I don't know that much about her, so I don't have the compensation of being a fan, where you welcome anything with them on the cover.
I also don't hate the cover - I always like seeing someone new on the front of Vanity Fair - but because the cover image has a deliberate blurry or dreamy look, I feel it looks worse in print than as a scan.
Usually glossiness adds dimension to digital images, but when the original cover image isn't sharp enough, the glossiness only seems to emphasise the indistinct elements and makes them seem lacking.
I can see what they were going for, but it's just not going to be joining my VF Hall of Fame (also, the issue is so thin, you could probably push it through the side of a closed door).
I imagine there'll be many Charli XCX fans buying a copy for their collection, and not caring for any of the articles inside, which are mostly about the art world, a niche area at the best of times.