I've been an SI subscriber for close to 40 years, and there's no doubt that
when they went digital, the quality went downhill. Of course, I'm an old fart
and don't mind a bit of grain once in a while if a shot has to be blown up a
lot, but some of the crap they publish now -- don't get me started. The "great
shot" quotient may have improved marginally because of the ease of shooting
1000 pictures per quarter, but the quality is just not what it used to be.
Another magazine to which I have been a long-time subscriber seems to be pretty
much sticking with film, although with maybe a bit of judicious airbrushing
sometimes: Playboy. Most of them wimmen-folk still look mighty fine to my aging
eyes. Of course, even SI still shoots the swimsuit issue with an RB-67 and
film. I guess it's a matter of how deserving is the subject, and if it's Jocks
versus Jills, the Jills win.
Walt, a one-time Jock
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|