|
| Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition 2006 | 
 enlarge | Author: Editors Of Sports Illustrated
Publisher: The Time Inc. Magazine Company
Category: Book
Buy New: $5.99
New (5) Used (6) Collectible (4) from $5.09
Avg. Customer Rating:  18 reviews
Sales Rank: 253622
Media: Single Issue Magazine
Pages: 200
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.1
Dimensions (in): 10.3 x 7.6 x 0.5
ISBN: 1580607616
EAN: 9781580607612
ASIN: 1580607616
Publication Date: February 14, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Most photos are clear, but some are second-rate March 5, 2006
7 out of 9 found this review helpful
I am fascinated at watching professionals at work. I appreciate those of us who do difficult work; I have great admiration for those of us who do it well. I see this magazine as a showcase of the work of professionals: models, photographers, make-up and hair artists, costume designers, editors, and advertisers. (Fortunately, there is no imbecilic sportswriting in this issue.) And most of the photos are beautiful. This review is about the ones that aren't.
There are problems in two of the collections of photos: those of Molly Sims, and the "Bombshell Beach" with the eight cover models in the Bahamas. By some coincidence, both of those collections were photographed by Raphael Mazzucco. There is either something wrong with the camera --- perhaps it doesn't focus right, or its lens is too small, or its JPEG compression is too high --- or something amiss in the retouching process, or both.
Almost all other photos in the magazine are crystal-clear. On p. 131, Franz Lidz writes, "it's really all about the hair," and in most of the other pictures you can see the individual strands --- even in Heidi Klum's art-softened collection. All the advertisements, certainly --- poor-quality photos would detract from the product, and you won't see any errors there.
But, on p. 7, in the table of contents, I see an obvious rectangular grid on Elle MacPherson's abdomen and the out-of-focus white-sand background. This grid is barely perceptible on Walter Iooss, Jr's Marisa Miller (p. 9), and almost imperceptible on Steward Shining's Ana Beatriz Barros (p. 5). Maybe this is because p. 5 and p. 9 have darker backgrounds. OK, next example.
On p. 105, there is either a hot pixel or a printing error that puts a red spot on Molly Sims's right shoulder. On pp. 106-107, Ms. Sims's hair and wrist are in relatively-clear focus, but the printing pixelation around her eyebrow, eye, nose, and mouth lend an overall harshness to the scene, no matter the out-of-focus softening of the body and background. Maybe this is to reflect the harsh glitz of Las Vegas, but this is one of the least-attractive large photos in the magazine. On p. 108, I think the focus is at Ms. Sims's nose, but the depth of field is so small that her eyelashes don't appear as separate hairs. "The $30 Million Bikini" on pp. 112-115 has color noise or dithering, making Ms. Sims's skin look sandpaper-rough. The focus is on the diamonds at her left breast, so, again, I cannot resolve any eyelashes.
I admit, big photos are harder than small ones. When you blow up any image, all the little errors are just that much more apparent. Skin tones are harder to print than brighly-colored sports uniforms. I may have misjudged the photographer's artistic intention. Interior light may not be as intense as daylight. Fine. Let's move on to the Bahamas.
In the photo of the eight professional models sitting or kneeling on the beach (pp. 141-144), I again sense the harshness, and the reason isn't the glare of the sun off the gloss of the models' lips --- there's a dithering or compression problem afflicting almost every skin area. This "reunion" is arguably the most important photo in the magazine. I think this isn't a printing problem, because the small photos of the same models don't show this effect.
The rest of the collection is somewhat redeeming. The photos of Elle MacPherson on pp. 146-148 and 150 are better, but not amazing. The rest of the photos in the collection are good, some even as clear as those in the other collection in the magazine. On pp. 176-177, I can even see tiny grains of sand on Rebecca Romijn's shoulden and Rachel Hunter's collarbone. The printing error --- a white dot on Elle MacPherson's face --- distracts.
I am not a professional photographer, but I do appreciate professional work. If it was a professional (editorial) choice to show older models poorly compared to younger models (just as a bride is given some latitude to present her bridesmaids as foils), then I cannot argue with that, and must apologize to Raphael Mazzucco for singling out his work. But I doubt it. Why then would the "Beach Party" be the focus? What professional model would agree to this presentation? What professional photographer would accept this blemish to her/his resume?
Sports Illustrated received some 35 million dollars (the widely-reported 2005 figure) for the swimsuit issue and related products. The companies that bought advertising made sure that their creative agencies delivered a top-quality product --- as I said before, their advertisements are crystal-clear. If you pay for this magazine, you'd hope that their photo retouching experts would have fixed these problems and delivered a higher-quality product. Alas, some professional along the way made a decision of what was good enough for you.
I am selling my copy in the Amazon Marketplace.
 The New SI is FInally here! February 28, 2006
6 out of 11 found this review helpful
The Best 6 bucks i spent in a long time!
 The Reason Why It's the Top Selling Issue February 28, 2006
9 out of 62 found this review helpful
The reason why it's the top-selling issue is because it's porn. Duh. Except that it doesn't have to have the black plastic around it, any kid can pick it up and marvel at completely naked women - except that their skin is a color other than a flesh tone because they're "painted". I'm sorry, but some of us like to stay faithful to one woman and not have to see just-a-smidge-away-from-nudity all the time.
Great job, but too much clothes February 26, 2006
5 out of 19 found this review helpful
Sports Illustrated does a great job displaying female beauty, but I'm still left unsatisfied. I'm waiting for the SI Swimsuit Issue with full nudity. Come on, these are beautiful creatures, and beauty and our bodies are one of God's gifts to us. Why not dispense with the hypocrisy and fear and display women in all their feminine perfection?
Don't listen to these religious nutjobs. I think religious people are more ungodly than anything else.
Beauty is good/beauty is God. SI, go to a nude beach and photograph these girls without the swimsuits.
P.S. I would like some Asian models, as well.
Why the cry of diversity..... February 25, 2006
8 out of 13 found this review helpful
Why is diversity or the supposed lack of it important here? This issue is about beautiful women in swim suits. I don't take count of how many different nationalities or minorities are represented, I just enjoy the view. The choice is yours....if you don't like it don't buy it!!!!
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
