Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Lunchtime Quickie: Woman's Breast I… | Art Thieves Strike Olympia Weirdly,… »

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Cats / City / Media Now More Indistinguishable Than Ever!

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

_gickr.com__a642a94d-b03c-bd64-7dcf-cdf4a038881c.gif

Note that one is the "official commemorative issue" and the other is the "official collector's edition."

FacebookShare

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

"If we gotta pay for the stock photo, by God, we're gonna get every dime outta it, dammit!" - design director at SeattleMet.

Posted by Knat on January 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

If that photo would stop flashing like a goddamm strobe light I might be able to really look at it.

Posted by tacomagirl on January 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

(2: Drag the image to your desktop and it chills the fuck out.)

Posted by David Schmader on January 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM

which of the magazines is using the image correctly and which one has it flipped?

Posted by Gordon Werner on January 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

@2 - Hit escape, and animated gifs will mercifully cease. Reload the page, and they'll return to their frolicking splendor.*

*tested on Firefox 10 and IE 8

Posted by opticsdoug on January 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM

One of my many designer pet peeves is when photos of people and/or recognizable buildings (or recognizable stock photos of anything) get flipped. You can get away with that for photos of generic landscapes, plants, and animals — but a person pushing the shutter button on the left (!) side of a camera is just wrong.

Posted by john t on January 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I bought that magazine one time in the 17 years I have lived in Seattle. I think that says about all that can be said about it.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 26, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Sigh. I have having to explain this to people.

Seattle Magazine: For Redmond parents researching dentists and schools for their kids, and who rarely cross the bridge.

Seattle Met: For Belltown/Cap Hill residents aspiring to be the above, but looking for a new bar to ruin in the meantime.

Posted by chimsquared on January 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM

The difference:

Seattle Magazine: For Redmond parents researching dentists and schools for their kids, and who rarely cross the bridge.

Seattle Met: For Belltown/Cap Hill residents aspiring to be the above, but looking for a new bar to ruin in the meantime.

Posted by chimsquared on January 26, 2012 at 2:57 PM

My apologies for the double post. Tried to fix my tyop. Mods, please remove #8 if you can.

Posted by chimsquared on January 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I've always been confused why the new one puts so much effort into publishing a magazine exactly like the one that has already been here for 30 years. Such a wasted opportunity!

Posted by mitten on January 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM

@6, sometimes the shutter button *IS* on the left! (I have a '50s-era Stereo Realist...still works great, as long as I can keep getting slide film...knock on wood.)

Posted by g on January 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Thanks @5 for the (Esc) suggestion. I was able to stop it long enough to evaluate the two covers. IMO Seattle Met wins the cover design. Much cleaner look, more compelling visually. Better cropping and size of the image. No distracting copy like in the Seattle Magazine cover. Even the bar code has been reduced in a size more appropriate. The gold goes nicely with the black and white image and headline. The Seattle Met cover makes me want to actually pick up the magazine and look through it. Good job!

Posted by No Offense on January 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM