Peggy Wilkins
Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:55:20 -0800
>>>>> "Donn" == Donn McKnight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[re: Giuliana's centerfold as possibly coming from a digital camera source
image]
Donn> As for your hypothesis about film vs. digital - I have no
Donn> idea. I just took a digital photography class and while it
Donn> was just a introductory type thing I honestly think it has
Donn> something to do with the reproduction process because I was
Donn> able to take some shots and blow them up and keep warmth and
Donn> texture.
I think you are right that the printing process is part of the problem
with the printed magazine images. It's as if they (whoever is editing
the images) isn't able to consistently adjust colors to output
properly or pleasantly to the "device" used. This is the same thing
that has happened to Special Editions when they went to all digital
camera image sources. IMO someone needs to calibrate the color better
to the printer/printing process. (In general the magazine is doing
better than the SE's, though.)
Donn> I also notice that the shots in the CC never seem
Donn> to be as bad as they appear in the magazine.
I agree with you there, too. A monitor is much more forgiving than a
hardcopy printed page, and the noise that appears in the magazine
images is much more subtle on the lower resolution version of the same
images for the Cyber Club.
I have wondered sometimes if some of the editing artifacts that appear
on the printed page could be (unintentionally) intesified by data
compression. Do they compress the image data that go to the printer?
I have no idea, but sometimes it looks like it.
Donn> I could be
Donn> wrong, but my guess is that in an effort to cut costs they
Donn> have decided to go with a different print process and the
Donn> result is poor quality in reproducing the images on the
Donn> page.
I suspect it is more complicated than that. I think they are using
the same printing process that they have used for a long time now.
However, I think the production process as an image moves from source
through editing and preparation for printing, which must involve
various format changes, is a long and complicated process. The old
process worked well, but in updating/changing it, well, IMO they fail
at making good output now about as often as they succeed. Why can't
they produce consistently good page images?
Donn> If so, that SUCKS. I think this because the
Donn> photographers shooting for Stuff, Maxim, SI and all the
Donn> others are probably using digital cameras as well and they
Donn> seem to be able to get nice, clean, warm, clear shots so why
Donn> can't Playboy?
Actually I don't agree that Maxim et al always have good looking
printed pages. Sometimes their color sucks; but admittedly, they
don't usually have editing artifacts for whatever reason (probably
because they don't use film and so don't deal with film grain; PLAYBOY
seems to be using both film and digital and they get very different
results from each source).
Donn> As for the CF looking bad because of it being digital - I
Donn> don't know, but I doubt it. Monica Leigh's was the first
Donn> digital image CF and hers looks nothing like this. Again, I
Donn> don't know for sure, but I would be surprised. To me it
Donn> just looks like they decided not to edit the image for some
Donn> reason and I think it's a shame.
I am curious why you are doubtful that this centerfold could come from
a (high quality/professional) digital camera. The color response is
what is the giveaway to me. You remarked on her skin looking bad, and
IMO that isn't because the image is unretouched film, but because of
the color response of the digital camera... Of course I could be
completely wrong, but just because Monica's CF looks different
shouldn't disqualify this one... IMO. They are very different
settings, particularly in terms of color.
Donn> I guess in some ways her pictorial/CF represents a lot of
Donn> what is bothering me about Playboy in terms of quality of
Donn> the magazine and unfortunately I am kind of lumping her in
Donn> with that. I honestly thought for the first time in a while
Donn> that this might be my last year of subscribing to the
Donn> magazine. I am just not satisfied with what I am getting
Donn> anymore in terms of photo quality, pictorial subject quality
Donn> (wrestling girls? come on), or editorial content. Sad but
Donn> true - I spend more time reading a Entertainment Weekly
Donn> issue than most Playboy issues and that (to me) is sad. I
Donn> have a co-worker who has been bringing in their old Esquire
Donn> issues and it's the same thing - I read more articles in it
Donn> than Playboy. Same with Vanity Fair, etc.
PLAYBOY has way less editorial content than Vanity Fair! They
actually have a very small amount of content compared to what they had
30-35 years ago when every issue was packed full of articles and
multiple fiction stories (now there is only one fiction feature per
issue). I still enjoy reading PLAYBOY and am not having a problem
with its content. There are charming features, and actually sometimes
the best photos go with those rather than the actual pictorials
(e.g. the lingerie/romance feature with Athena Lundberg and Janine
Habeck, or the one showing Irina Voronina with an oyster: those have
been stunning, and beautifully produced images, for some reason
looking better than many pictorials). I adore the monthly full page
Olivia artwork, also. That always looks good.
Donn> It's frustrating
Donn> to me, but at some point I have to wonder when enough is
Donn> going to be enough. What's the point of collecting a
Donn> magazine for their quality photography when the quality is
Donn> gone?
That, though, is also a very big source of frustration for me, too.
Even if they messed up everything else, I would forgive it if the
centerfold looked as good as it used to in terms of both clarity and
color. It has been and continues to be a big disappointment to me.
I'm blown away when I open up the pre-2004 centerfolds because they
look so much better in terms of image quality.
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/