----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I expect the point that was being made is that digital
imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image
unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just
like you aren't referring to an instant film process.)
Rob, digital imaging does, most certainly, impose a noise/transfer fingerprint.
We bitch about parts of it from time to time with things like RAW converters leaving rough edges. stairstepping, and weird edge effects.
We complain about not enough pixies, and how this introduces artifacts when we overmagnify the image.
The way to remove much (all, to a great extent) of a film's noise/transfer fingerprint is to treat it in as direct an imaging method as possible.
This means large film and contact sheets.
In the 1970s. Playboy magazine used triple truck sized sheet film camera for their centerfolds.
Not sure if this is the correct term, but the centerfolds were made from contact printed Ektachromes.
I have it on good regard from one of Pompeo Posar's former assistants that the centerfolds were not airbrushed, although the models pretty much were.
The image quality is pretty astounding, especially for a magazine. Apparently the Ektachrome originals are beyond gorgeous.
William Robb
