BP wrote:
> Once a week, I read from Sports Illustrated on a subcarrier
> service for the blind, so I get to see every issue of a
> magazine that I would otherwise ignore. I assume (and we all
> know what our sixth grade teachers said about that) that
> about 100% of the photos are digital. i've seen some of the
> nastiest double trucks since they went digital that I've ever
> seen. Taken from that limited sample, it would seem that
> digital goes to crap in a really nasty way that film doesn't.
If Sports Illustrated is the poster child for high-end
imaging... Can we make an assumption here that most sports
photography is done with Canon cameras? Well, since Canon
cameras are used for most of the images in Sports Illustrated,
then I think that Canan Cameras take absolutely hideous
pictures.
I think the biggest problem with Sports Illustrated is that
they're like a child with a new toy and apply noise reduction
and selective blurring to the images in ways that make me want
to barf. JPEG artifacts after the NR process look like worms
all over the images. This has nothing to do with scaling, but
everything to do with moronic editing and pre-press.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|