…cost her .49¢
Supermarine Hurricane Mk IIC. I don’t care what anyone tells you -the Spitfire might be more glamorous, but this is the plane that was the real workhorse behind the Battle of Britain. If any plane was responsible for victory in the skies, this is it.
Look at the image on the cover of the packaging. Realism? Hell no. Either the ‘artist’ took extreme creative liberties, or else the printer ran out of green, and was low on blue and decided, ‘fuck it! All that extra red will be far more exciting.’
The picture is worth the price alone. Instead of a bold Hurricane majestically patrolling the skies, it looks more like Charon ferrying souls of the damned across the River Acheron, and into hell!!
Now that’s exciting!!
Anyone who’s ever taken a few pictures (everyone) has on occasion, probably noticed something similar. Someone in the shot will probably look green, or yellow, or blue-ish. Someone looked sick. Either the white balance in your camera is off; your subject is positioned under a coloured light, or, in the case of film shooters, the emulsion you’ve chosen for your shot(s) doesn’t match the scene you shot your photos in. Or perhaps, that cool looking filter you applied to the image actually looks like shit.
Back in 1990, when Fuji Velvia was first released, there was great excitement among photographers because it was such a ‘punchy’ (saturated colours) film, it made even the mundane bright and cheery. It was a product of the times. Flourescents, and neons were all the rage for a couple of years back then, and everyone wanted that look.
Unfortunately, it was horrible for skin tones.
Can’t blame Fuji, though. There was a (albeit, rather tiny) notice on the box that the film cans came in stating that Fuji advised against the use of Velvia when photographing people, or skin tones, -which was the first, and so far, only time I’ve ever seen such a thing on the packaging of film. Of course, many completely disregarded this warning, and went ahead and shot portraits, and all sorts of stuff, marveling at eye-scorching brilliant colours, but completely oblivious to the fact that all the people in their images had heads looking like giant tomatoes, or pumpkins.
(There are still, to this day, a couple of very popular photographic websites that feature this, uh, interesting look!)
Portrait photographers obsess over this sort of thing. Skin tones. Well, it is their bread and butter, after all; but I’ve seen raging arguments over the apparent glaringly obvious differences between two or three film types, or presets, when to me, the differences seemed less than negligible.
But as people with cameras, we at least owe it to ourselves, and especially our subjects, to try and get the skin tones as close as possible to real life. This proves tricky sometimes when you’ve got a group of people of mixed races. When in doubt, split the differences, or if at all possible, re-shoot under more favorable conditions.
Perhaps the most egregious example of getting skin tones wrong, (at least that was the claim. I find it very hard to believe that the head photo editor for TIME magazine, -a position that, at the time, was perhaps near the pinnacle of what one could be for that job) was TIME Magazine fucking up the image of O.J. Simpson on their magazine cover during his trial. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, FUCK TIME Magazine.
At the very least, this reeks of false journalism, (How about, out and out lying?) but I think it’s pretty safe to say that TIME Magazine manipulated an image to create a darker, more sinister monster to sell magazines.
What does that say about them?