Monday, 17 May 2010

The Economic Necessity of Paying for Stock

Spotted over at Photoshop Disasters, this unfortunate book cover mistake.

The book preview at the Cambridge University Press website also features the same watermark. I'd hope the physical book does not, but even so this is a bit feeble.


C. Pinheiro, EA ABA said...

This is a disaster. It even makes the BEAST FEEDING cover look normal in comparison. That's because that crazy woman had enough sense not to use a stock photo.

JRSM said...

And to be fair, what stock image could encompass the majesty of her work? Sorry, THE MAJESTY OF HER WORK!

pedromarquesdg said...

It must conceptual, in any way... It must. (Think, darn' it!) Someone able to get out of that jam with an after-the-fact "reason" for it would sell ice to Iceland.

Bob Fingerman said...

I was curious about this, so I checked the listing on Amazon. It's an $85.00 (ouch) text book. But of the three posted reviews, this one caught my eye:

"Why are you two idiots giving two stars based on the istock watermark?

You embody what's wrong with the ratings system. You see something on Photoshop Disasters and rush to Amazon to be the first moron to put in your two cents.

I have the original, and there's no watermark (big surprise). In fact, it's not even the same cover. It's similar but not identical. It's not the most interesting read but it was required for college."

So, maybe this book's cover isn't quite so retarded in person. Maybe the blame lies on whoever sent out the unfinished cover to online retailers.

JRSM said...

Thank you for that--it seemed unlikely that the cover would be that shoddy, but it also seems odd that nobody would at least fix it on the publisher's own site.