Subliminal marketing or good old fashioned c*ck up

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by Kettering_Jeremy

Bought mine in Sainsburys on Sunday. Was that early?

Definitely isn't a ploy by DC staff to get everyone to buy the mag (I don't work for them and subscribe to another mag, aimed at photographers who are amateurs).

Hi Jeremy,

It may not be a ploy, but this sort of thing doesn't happen by accident. This has been done of purpose, probably as a joke. But not a very funny one.

Did anyone else spot last month's c**k up? Have a look at the exposure details for the cover pic. I brought this to the editor's attention who said he'd look into it, but there's no correction or mention in this months edition.

Are their editorial standards slipping?

[Geoff Harris]

Ah Jet Kit, you are wrong, sir. It was a good old fashioned **** up.

That particular image of the Canon camera is actually made up of twp pictures, one with the background of the running track and the second without any background - so that the top of the camera is cut out. This enables the camera to stick out of the image box in our page layout program, Adobe InDesign. Unfortunately when the group test was sent to the printers the second image was linked to the wrong file name.

Programs like InDesign do a lot to help us output the mag, but human error still happens. Our art editor has been flogged and we'll be more careful in future. We are now doing a full digital proof of the group test to enable us to triple check image placement

Geoff, Editor

[rhodes454]

Originally Posted by Geoff Harris

Ah Jet Kit, you are wrong, sir. It was a good old fashioned **** up.

That particular image of the Canon camera is actually made up of twp pictures, one with the background of the running track and the second without any background - so that the top of the camera is cut out. This enables the camera to stick out of the image box in our page layout program, Adobe InDesign. Unfortunately when the group test was sent to the printers the second image was linked to the wrong file name.

Programs like InDesign do a lot to help us output the mag, but human error still happens. Our art editor has been flogged and we'll be more careful in future. We are now doing a full digital proof of the group test to enable us to triple check image placement

Geoff, Editor

That's all well and good, but I think a new flogging may be in order for issue 136. Is it an April fool that the pic of the rear of the D600 on page 120 is actually a duplicate of the D800 on page 124? ("remarkably similar" indeed). If so...well done, but I (and I assume others) would have appreciated being able to compare the two. Of course, we shouldn't overlook the description of the Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G as "Best for Canon" (page 132), which may be a surprise to some Canon users.

[greenwing]

Originally Posted by rhodes454

... Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G as "Best for Canon" (page 132), which may be a surprise to some Canon users.

But not, perhaps, to Nikon users?