Donn McKnight
Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:27:31 -0800
I went back and looked at the CyberClub preview shots and I agree - it's the
first set in a long time (maybe since Tiffany Fallon's) where I think the
Playmate looks really great in most of the shots. (Well, I liked last months
too, but, but maybe it's that I like Giuliana better than Tyran...). The
CyberClub shots are WAY better than the magazine picotrial for sure.
My 3 favorite shots of her are the same as yours with one exception - I
didn't really care for the opening shot. I was referring to 3 shots where I
thought she looked good (as opposed to the quality of the color or noise) so I
also liked the 2-page shot. Yeah, it's noisey and really sucks quality wise,
but I like her face in it (sad that I have dropped my standards so much...). I
REALLY love the shot of her looking in the mirror and am looking forward to
seeing (hopefully) more of that series when they update them in the CC.
As for your hypothesis about film vs. digital - I have no idea. I just took
a digital photography class and while it was just a introductory type thing I
honestly think it has something to do with the reproduction process because I
was able to take some shots and blow them up and keep warmth and texture. I
also notice that the shots in the CC never seem to be as bad as they appear in
the magazine. I could be wrong, but my guess is that in an effort to cut costs
they have decided to go with a different print process and the result is poor
quality in reproducing the images on the page. If so, that SUCKS. I think
this because the photographers shooting for Stuff, Maxim, SI and all the others
are probably using digital cameras as well and they seem to be able to get
nice, clean, warm, clear shots so why can't Playboy?
As for the CF looking bad because of it being digital - I don't know, but I
doubt it. Monica Leigh's was the first digital image CF and hers looks nothing
like this. Again, I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised. To me it
just looks like they decided not to edit the image for some reason and I think
it's a shame.
Someone posted a comment that because I thought Giuliana looks like Teri
Weigel that it was a bad thing. Not at all - I think/thought Teri Weigel was a
great Playmate (until I saw one of her porn movies and was completely turned
off) - in fact I think her CF is SPECTACULAR. I don't think Giuliana is ugly
or a bad choice for a Playmate at all - in fact, I get her appeal. I was just
expecting something different I guess and mixed with my reaction to (in my
opinion) a extremely weak April issue I was probably a bit hard on her. Horrid
CF and bad pictorial aside I think she is really pretty.
I guess in some ways her pictorial/CF represents a lot of what is bothering
me about Playboy in terms of quality of the magazine and unfortunately I am
kind of lumping her in with that. I honestly thought for the first time in a
while that this might be my last year of subscribing to the magazine. I am
just not satisfied with what I am getting anymore in terms of photo quality,
pictorial subject quality (wrestling girls? come on), or editorial content.
Sad but true - I spend more time reading a Entertainment Weekly issue than most
Playboy issues and that (to me) is sad. I have a co-worker who has been
bringing in their old Esquire issues and it's the same thing - I read more
articles in it than Playboy. Same with Vanity Fair, etc. It's frustrating to
me, but at some point I have to wonder when enough is going to be enough.
What's the point of collecting a magazine for their quality photography when
the quality is gone?
Peggy Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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/