L.A. Times Mag Fashion Issue

I was just looking the Los Angeles Times Magazine's semi-annual Men's Fashion issue, and there was some very weird stuff in the captions on the lead story featuring actor Jason Bateman modelling clothes. Now, I have always thought I had normal color perception, but I just turned 63, and they say that visual and mental acuity decline in old age, so maybe I've gone downhill more than I thought. Anyway... On page 16, there is a picture of Bateman sitting on a bicycle wearing a suit that is described as "brown." It sure looks gray to me. (However, as a longtime veteran of the magazine business I realize that color values can change in printing...although usually not to the extent that brown looks gray.) The shoes he is wearing are described in the caption as "tassel loafers." Sure could have fooled me--they look for all the world like captoe oxfords. Then on page 21 Mr. Bateman is wearing what is described in the caption as a "green" suit. It sure looks sort of gray-blue-black (what I think is sometimes called "gunmetal") to me. Anyway, any of you SoCal boys who get the L.A. Times, I need help. Are these captions way off base...or have I gone color-blind and has my vision deteriorated to such a point that I can't distinguish between tassel loafers and captoe oxfords?

Mr. Libourel, If anyone knows what the color gunmetal is, it should be you. Jon.

As you get older, your eyes change. The index of refraction in the lens in the eye begins to shift, and this will begin to distort your color perception. That's why you see all those older women with those bluish hair.

yeah i noticed those too.  discrepancies like these often appear in the l.a. times mag. though. imo, makes the whole thing seem rather low-rent when minor mistakes that shouldn't be happen.  the copywriters need to get their sh** together.

the copywriters need to get their sh** together.

Click to expand...

I dunno, seems to me to be the copyeditors or maybe even the photo editors. As a long time verteran of the magazine business, you could probably answer: whose screw up was it?

Checking the masthead of the L.A. Times Magazine revealed that they had three senior staff editors and two associate editors. I assume one of these personages was probably the culprit. Ultimately, anything of that sort that goes wrong in a magazine is the fault of the editor. He (or she) should be on top of things like that.

It struck me as curious: The L.A. Times Magazine has 14 staffers on their masthead to put out a 36 page magazine every week. I put out an 80-page magazine every month with an art director and one-third of a managing editor (I share him with two other publications). Thus, they put out less than twice as much product as I do with six times the staff resources. (And I don't kill myself on the job--have plenty of time to visit these fora.) My suspicion is that they are so overstaffed it turns into a cluster f***, and that's probably why errors of the type I originally cited occur.

At the staff meeting:

Boss: I'm sad to say that we are looking at downsizing the staff. I understand that Mr. Libourel thinks we may be overstaffed which is why you people keep screwing up simple things.

Mid-level staffer: (stands up) Where is this Libourel character? I'm going to go kick his ass.

Boss: He's the editor over at Gun World.

*silence*