[Bob J]

I don’t know how it works but I assume the photog takes the pics and then the publication does the airbrushing/enhancments if they desire.

I agree that the difference in the stark McCain cover and the airbrushed “superman” pose of Obamas indicates a lack of balance in their propaganda efforts. But I don’t think you can place the lack of airbrushing of McCains photo at the feet of the photog. That was an editorial decision.

[jwparkerjr]

Having never shot for a magazine as high up the feeding chain as Atlantic Monthly I can't speak directly for how they do it, but in my experience I was expected to provide untouched photos. The prepress work on the photos is done by the magazine, not by the shooter.

I might be a bit off base though since, as a previous poster pointed out, it's the pictures on her website that are causing the uproar. I took it from the first posting yesterday that they were unhappy with the cover art.

The whole thing is pretty refreshing though since for years, a century or more, publications have felt free to use their cover art to help make or break a public figure. This is the first time I can remember them taking so much heat for the art or the text on a cover. Look at the last week's brouhaha on the cover with Sarah Palin and the misleading copy.

I think for the first time in their publishing lives they are beginning to have to pay attention to their work. Time was they just blasted away and there was nothing an unhappy reader could do. Seems to me like these days enough people react to a cover or article to make it worth the publisher's time to think about it before running it.