Peggy Wilkins
Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:52:30 -0800
>>>>> "Donn" == Donn McKnight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donn> Miss April, Giuliana Marino - Ok, so everyone who posts on
Donn> this list that has seen photos of Giuliana has RAVED about
Donn> her. I checked out her CyberClub preview pictorial and I
Donn> thought ok, yeah, she's cute and she has a great body, but
Donn> she's not the next best thing since sliced bread that she
Donn> was being described as.
For the first time ever, I was very very happy with the Cyber Club's
Playmate Preview photos. Normally I find the actual magazine
pictorial to be superior in every way, but this time was different. I
thought almost every one of the preview images made her look
fantastic. You can count me as one of the "ravers"... but...
Donn> When I looked at her pictorial my
Donn> first thought was wow - she must have pissed Hef off and
Donn> bad. First of all there are only 7 total pictures of her
Donn> (plus the CF). Second, of those 7 photos I'd say she looks
Donn> above average in 3. To some that might seem lile a good
Donn> percentage, but to me if you are going to run so few shots
Donn> they should ALL be great.
I also see three of the photos as being superior. Do we agree which
ones?
1. The opening photo on p.86 (she is holding a coffee cup). While
it's not a particularly stunning photo (the setting is a bit too
cluttered/busy), she comes across well in it, and it has good color
and clarity. I really want to like the photo on the opposite page,
but the color (especially the background) is too yellow-brown-green
(almost what I'd call "pukey") for me to consider it attractive. If
it weren't for the color, I would like it more.
2. On p.88 where she is leaning over the car door. Again, beautiful
color and clarity; the red reproduces very well. Again, I want to
like the one on the opposite page but the color and clarity don't
compare. It looks faded or washed out in comparison, and I can also
see varying texture introduced as editing artifacts.
3. The photo where she is looking into the mirror (p.92). Again, good
clarity, and the blue of the top she wears balances the golden wall
color and contrasts nicely with her skin. Once again I want to like
the photo on the opposite page, but it looks washed out and has
texture variances, and the red doesn't look as good as it should.
The two-page photo is a mess of uneven texture and film grain; it's
too technically weak for me to like it much.
I have a hypothesis. I think that the washed out looking photos may
be film source images, because they have the uneven texture that most
PLAYBOY photos have had over the past few years that is caused by
editing scanned film images. And I think the clear ones may be
digital camera source images. Either that, or they are unedited film
images, and since they are unedited, problems haven't been introduced.
(There's no question in my mind that their editing introduces problems
for the printed page.) I am not sure which. But I will point out
something interesting: the photo on p.93 (on the back of the
centerfold, that is) has obviously been edited because her moles are
absent; her moles are present on p.92, suggesting that that image may
not have been edited. Interesting, isn't it.
In short, I don't think either she or the photographer is to blame for
the inconsistent look of her layout photos. It's the way they've been
edited and printed. Again, just a hypothesis. I could be wrong.
Donn> Then I opened up her CF and I
Donn> decided that yep, she pissed Hef off and he totally fucked
Donn> her by publishing a CF that makes her skin look horrid. It
Donn> looks like a photo that someone took of their girlfriend -
Donn> you can see the scar on her hip right on down to the stubble
Donn> left over from her last pubic waxing. Sorry, maybe it's the
Donn> dawn of a new era in Playmate photography where they want to
Donn> show the Playmate as she is without any retouching, but I
Donn> personally prefer the polished, flawless look that they
Donn> usually present.
I have another hypothesis: I think that the centerfold image is a
digital camera source image. If true, AFAIK this would be only the
second printed centerfold that has used a digital camera source image
(the other one being 3/2006). The reason I think it is digital is
because the light response of a digital camera is distinctly different
from light response of film. The colors are almost too realistic, and
it is what I see as more "highlighty". Film response appears much
warmer to me. This image is cold and hard with skin tones that look
flat or washed over, which to me is a marker of much digital
photography. Sorry for my probably inaccurate terminology, I may be
using some terms like tone and highlight incorrectly; I'm not sure.
The centerfold image is not edited, as far a I can tell. It looks
like what you see is what you get. This is in contrast to most of the
other recent centerfolds where they are smoothing the heck out of
them, probably to get rid of film grain that gets enhanced when they
digitally scan and edit the medium format film source. I have been
objecting to what I see as overediting of the centerfold image for
many months now. If they still shot on 8x10 they wouldn't need to
smooth it over so much. But that is beating a dead horse, isn't it.
As for what I think of this centerfold, I think it trades one set of
problems (medium format film->editing introduces uneven texture, not
as clear as 8x10, harsh look from oversharpening source image) for
another (digital->muddy looking colors, too realistic looking,
unattractive color response when printed). Probably the color could
be cleaned up in editing but that would take a dedicated expert that
they don't seem to have the money to pay!
What I am talking about here is the desireability of making the
centerfold look as good, as expertly produced, as it used to before
2004.
The funny thing is, I am sure the Cyber Club preview photos are
digital camera source images; yet they look much better to me than
what is in the centerfold. I guess the centerfold is so large on the
printed page that it is unforgiving.
DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what I'm talking about as far as technical
issues go but I do know how I react to what I see. What I see on the
printed page is important to me. To me, the whole point of looking at
a centerfold is to RESPOND to it. If my response is to be put off by
technical quality and issues, that is a problem for me.
Donn> I'm ok with the set and pose, but I think Giuliana is just
Donn> an average Playmate that reminds me a little bit of Teri
Donn> Weigel.
Interesting that you bring up Teri Weigel because when I first saw
her pictures I thought to myself that she reminded me of a combination
of Teri Weigel and Tiffany Fallon. But my reaction differes from
yours, in that I'm bowled over; I don't consider Giuliana average at
all.
plw
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pml1/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pml1/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/