|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
April 2004 centerfold
03/15/04 04:26 PM
|
|
|
Apparently no one at PEI is doing quality control anymore, because the
April centerfold is filled with messy artifacts. There is all kinds of
extra "junk" in the image: Krista's face and parts of her hair are all
mottled, her fingernails and toenails look bizarre, skin tone on her
legs is weird and her legs look grainy, and the background to the right
of her thigh is so messy I first thought that she was standing in front
of a dirty mirror, and then when I noticed there was no mirror, I
figured the camera lens must have been dirty.
Again,
I'm sure I'm in a minority and most people will neither notice nor care
as long as Krista's body is on display; but it does impact my viewing
experience (one that I enjoyed a great deal in the past), and I can't
and won't apologize for being upset about it. I can only despair about
the future of PLAYBOY when its editors show so little care for the end
product.
Mr. Hefner, you really need to look at the copies
coming off the press, because nobody else is doing that. Whoever was
supposed to follow up on February's messy centerfold isn't doing it.
Why
should I or any other reader pay for such a shoddy product? Other
magazines don't have these problems, why should PLAYBOY?
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/15/04 04:31 PM
|
|
|
See, this is why I don't subscribe to Playboy. Piss poor quality, and
they don't consider, nor do they care, about your opinion.
I'm
not sure why they stopped using a large format camera. I'm no
photographer, but I'm fairly certain they produce prints of superior
quality, especially when it's a relatively large photograph like the
centerfold.
On a brighter note, Sandra Hubby, my early PMOY
2005 contender gets her update tonight. Hopefully her centerfold will
be good, as well as the rest of her portfolio.
These are the good old days.
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
Just to be clear, I think there are two separate major issues here (and
perhaps a few more minor issues). One is using medium format vs. large
format photography for the centerfold. PLAYBOY's Photography Director
goes on record as saying that the medium format photography is
"comparable quality" to the large format photography. I think that
phrase is well chosen, and I agree with him, it is indeed comparable
but not identical. I would make a different choice, but it is not my
choice to make.
The
second issue is other parts of the production process that might affect
image quality: digital manipulation and storage, printing process, etc.
I think this part is having more of an effect, because I'm seeing some
of the same problems in the centerfold now that used to be confined
only to non-centerfold pictures. I have been annoyed by this for about
6-8 years now, but only recently has it happened in the centerfold; and
I have to say that having problems in the centerfold is a much harder
thing to live with, in my view.
I am not happy with the move to
medium format, I can tell the difference but I can live with it. What I
am really annoyed by is whatever else is causing the mess in the
printed centerfold.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/15/04 05:13 PM
|
|
|
I finally saw Aliya Wolf's centerfold in the CC, and all I could think
to myself was "What's all the fuss about?" I looked at it with
cyberzoom, compared it to previous centerfolds, and saw little
difference.
Peggy,
I think you're just being too much of a hard-liner on this. You
yourself admit that the vast majority of readers won't care or won't
even notice. Centerfolds, IMO, shouldn't be analyzed down to the last
pixel, we should just enjoy them as a whole. They shouldn't be taken
apart and have every detail examined.
I have yet to see Krista's
CF (I let my subscription lapse). Perhaps it has to do with the quality
of the magazine vs. the CC? Graininess is usually much more apparent on
printed paper, anyway.
Place yourself in this position, Peggy:
You're the editor of a magazine that is losing money. You have a choice
to switch to a cheaper camera to save money which does indeed produce
"comparable quality" centerfolds. What would you do?
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
If you don't have the printed centerfold to look at, you have no valid
point of view from which to criticize my comments. We must look at the
same thing, or we are talking apples and oranges. I am not
overanalyzing here. It's not like I get out a magnifying glass and say,
how can I nail PLAYBOY this month... I look at centerfolds under bright
light because I enjoy looking at them and want to see every detail. I
looked at them under the same bright light 20 years ago, 10 years ago,
5 years ago, and even most of last year, and I had no problem with them
whatever.
Just
because some people don't notice quality issues, or notice them and
don't care, is not a valid reason to abandon good quality. That is
totally wrong. Frankly, I have no idea whatever how many people notice
or don't notice; I only say that I think most don't notice or care
because I am always replied to by a certain number of people who say
that they don't notice, and I am pointing out directly that I am aware
of that.
However, that doesn't change the fact that I notice, and I care, and I am very disappointed.
I
already said that I agreed the medium format pictures are comparable
quality. Frankly, I don't know 100% what decision I would make if I
were an editor in charge of this decision. I would speak with all the
people it affected very candidly, and we would have to weigh all the
issues pro and con. I know already that I come down strongly on the
side of quality, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to what people
had to say, or consider that. Quite the contrary. I am fair, and I am
always willing to consider alternatives.
My point here, though
is that the resulting printed centerfold is to me unsatisfactory. What
is the precise cause of that still needs investigation.
I understand very well what the issues are, so you are not giving me any new information here.
I
already said that I thought there were other issues involved having to
do with image storage and printing; did you not read that? I'd
appreciate it if you'd try to really understand what I'm saying instead
of dismissing it. It's very easy to dismiss; a bit harder to deal with
real issues.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
CharlieG
|
|
Addict
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/05/02
|
|
Posts: 697
|
|
Loc: Sweet Home Alabama
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/15/04 06:15 PM
|
|
|
Peggy is totally right....
Forget the online web process as she is not refering at all to it... She is only refering to the MAGAZINE process.....
Peggy besides the smaller film format, it looks like PB has gone to a cheaper printing process and the artifacts may be coming
from that along with film format change... I may be wrong about the printing process but i have never seen jagged edges like
the
APRIL CF before....It looks like PB didn't so their "magic airbrush" on
the photo at all.....The skin tones have edges where they shouldn't
be....her right leg looks like it has a bruse on it too that's not in
the other shots.....Peggy compare the layout shots with the CF and see
if I am seeing things.....I know we both wear glasses but your eyes are
much keaner than mine......
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
Charlie, I think something has definitely changed. I do know that the
centerfold is still printed via halftone printing; whereas the rest of
the pictorial uses stochastic screening (this can be seen in a close
examination). But I am seeing some of the same effects on the
centerfold now that appear in the wider pictorial. I can only guess
what might be the cause, but my guesses would be along the lines of too
much compression (so, using lossy formats for saving images); and too
much sharpening. Both these are digital effects and have nothing to do
with film. But I see the film grain in the background, too...
I
hope I am not totally putting my foot in my mouth here. I don't know
that these are the problems, they are just educated guesses.
What I know for a fact: the last totally clean centerfold I saw was November 2003.
You're right on the money with the skin tone comment. To me, it looks like there's a rash on her leg...
BTW,
the best reproduced picture in the whole pictorial is the headshot on
Krista's datasheet. That one is fantastic! Why can't the rest of the
pictures be that good?
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
CharlieG
|
|
Addict
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/05/02
|
|
Posts: 697
|
|
Loc: Sweet Home Alabama
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/15/04 10:14 PM
|
|
|
Peggy....
I know the old style of 4-color printing and how it works......but
the new techie way is digital printing (well same 4 color process but
digital layout) may be the problem. layouts using PDF files etc etc is
digital....or so I am told by some clients I have but they stay in the
B&W newspaper style....The magazine has hard crisp lines instead of
soft flowing lines like it use to. I think we both noticed the
difference in the December 2003 issue and its been a hit & miss
since that issue. You are right about the oversharpening look of the PM
layout and you just may hit the nail on the head as they may went to
this new tech digtial layouts....
It really is bad however they are doing it.........We all knew of
the changes with the hiring of Kamisky, PB said it would be changes but
a degradation in quality is not a welcome change......
Post Extras:
|
|
joslik
|
|
Stranger
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/26/02
|
|
Posts: 22
|
|
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
|
This definately seems to be a problem with a switch to a digital
printing process over a more traditional process. It may be a case of
"getting the bugs out" before these artifacting problems are resolved
or maybe they just don't care.
The
magazine I work for and design month to month is all done digitally -
meaning that the files are printed to a postscript file and distilled
into a hi-resolution pdf. These files are sent via the web to our
printer. I haven't run into ANY of the problems that Playboy seems to
have run into in recent months. They may need to upgrade software on
their design end in order to remedy this sitution or switch their
printing partner. A skilled designer/production artist can cure many of
these problems with imaging BEFORE the files are even sent to print.
You would think that a company like Playboy would have people that know
what they are doing when the magazines livlihood depends so directly on
the printed piece itself. The art director needs a kick in the ass at
Playboy it seems. Maybe they're looking to hire? 
Post Extras:
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/15/04 11:59 PM
|
|
|
I have just looked at the printed Centerfold of Krista Kelly, and it
looks good to me. Playboy's art department has done another great job!
Krista looks wonderful.
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: joslik]
03/16/04 01:17 AM
|
|
|
In reply to:
You
would think that a company like Playboy would have people that know
what they are doing when the magazines livlihood depends so directly on
the printed piece itself. The art director needs a kick in the ass at
Playboy it seems.
I have
often wondered if anyone there actually looks at the printed product,
because from what I've seen, this question naturally arises. Honestly,
I can't even imagine a scenario where they aren't looking at the
printed product; they are professionals. Maybe they need to look under
brighter lights? Or maybe they need to employ people who aren't far
sighted so they can see detail close up? Or maybe they are too busy to
do anything about it? It's inexplicable to me.
Like I said already, other magazines don't have these problems, why should PLAYBOY?
About
the current Art Director, I really admired his work when I started
reading PLAYBOY. Every issue back then gave the cover credits saying
"this month's cover was designed and photographed by Tom Staebler" (he
wasn't the Art Director back then, but worked under Arthur Paul). I am
convinced he is a talented guy, he has more than proved that; but the
current product, from formulaic covers to the lack of a consistent look
and feel to the magazine to inconsistent printing quality, suggests
that either his hands are tied or he doesn't care much anymore. The
evidence shows a gross lack of careful oversight. I'd sure love to see
some evidence that he does still care.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
Krista does indeed look wonderful. She is beautiful, and she is
beautifully photographed. Just to be clear, my gripe is with the
reproduction, not with Krista and not with the photographers.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/16/04 01:31 AM
|
|
|
Aside from the centerfold, just to add something positive about
Krista's layout, the opening two pages are terrific. Not only beautiful
photographs of a stunningly photogenic woman, but the tie in of the
blue in her outfit with the blue title and blue lines surrounding the
text is one of the best page layouts I've ever seen. Now if the
artifacts could be cleaned up, I'd be one happy camper.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
tidalwave1
|
|
Addict
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/24/03
|
|
Posts: 524
|
|
Loc: Florida
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/16/04 05:43 AM
|
|
|
I like the blue sweater... 
Post Extras:
|
|
CharlieG
|
|
Addict
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/05/02
|
|
Posts: 697
|
|
Loc: Sweet Home Alabama
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: joslik]
03/16/04 08:47 AM
|
|
|
Joslik, thanks for sheading light on the digital printing process. Its always nice to have a real pro giving their input
and
we all appreciate the education on this new technology. As a working
photographer and former college newpaper editor I learned the old COLD
press and offset method and as I type I am working on a full page
layout for a client using the PDF method
and I am learning more each day.
Ron,
I guess since you are on speed dial to Kamisky, he must have sent you
personally a much different copy of the April issue than Peggy, Joslik,
myself and the rest of the world because our copies really look like
crap.... 
Post Extras:
|
|
Ionakana
|
|
Newbie
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/22/04
|
|
Posts: 38
|
|
|
|
|
Peggy, I totally concur with your assessment. However, I feel that as
is the case with any major corporation, specific attention to details
are sometimes overlooked as the directive focuses more on the company's
bottom line. Perhaps someone will eventually heed your comments and
actually apply them in the near future.
Joslik,
thanks for the refresher. It's nice to know that there are others on
this board who also have a working knowledge of things that some here
might not understand. I think there's more to a board than talking
about various body parts and what models do for some of the members.
Charlie,
I am actually going to pose a few questions to someone who might be
able to answer this matter for us. And if he dodges them (as I would
suspect) at least I can state our case personally sometime this week.
You
know, I wish I had a perfect copy like someone but I think I have a
greater appreciation for detail and my copy appears to be the same as
yours and everyone elses.
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
You might be interested in reading this thread
for a similar saga. I did write to Hef about it, and got two replies
from him. He did show concern, and he also said he was unhappy with the
quality of the March centerfold and they were reevaluating things
(though he didn't specifically say what things)... so I am left
wondering what happened here, and why it doesn't seem to have been
fixed by now.
BTW, I was assured that cost was not an issue.
I
really hope they can work this out to everyone's satisfaction;
especially mine, because I don't want to have my heart sink every time
I open up a new centerfold. 
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
Ionakana
|
|
Newbie
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/22/04
|
|
Posts: 38
|
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/16/04 11:25 PM
|
|
|
Peggy, thanks for the link to the other thread. If cost isn't the
issue, then someone is definitely dropping the ball on quality control.
For a company that made it's name from the centerfold section, you
would think that they would ensure the images were the best they can
possibly be. I will make sure to let you know if I get any definitive
answer to this.
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
I'd appreciate that; thanks a bunch!
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/16/04 11:49 PM
|
|
|
Peggy:
Why did Playboy drop the large 8"x10"
format plates? I know the women for the centerfold had to hold their
poses for a very long time for that huge camera, but to go to 35mm, and
two and a quarter inch formats seems counter productive. Is this
digital format anywhere near as good in quality as the big camera, or
is someone just cost-cutting corners in Playboy?
Ron
HickoryKnoll2448
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
|
The centerfold was shot with 8x10 film (large format) through most of
2003; since then most of the published centerfolds were shot with 2 1/4
x 3 1/4 film (medium format). They have never shot digital for the
centerfold, but it's my understanding that they do scan the film shot
into a digital format; however, I know no details about that.
I
think the main advantage of medium format is that it's much easier to
handle. Large format photography is time consuming since each shot must
be set up and a single sheet of film loaded for each shot. It also
requires a great deal of light, so that means specialized, expert
lighting as well as longer exposure times. There are also issues with
depth of field (the amount of the picture that appears to be in focus).
It takes special training to be able to use large format cameras, and
very few photographers today have experience using them. This is
probably a large part of the reason PLAYBOY has relied heavily on two
photographers (Freytag and Wayda, with George Georgiou very rarely
making an appearance) since the retirement of Pompeo Posar and the
death of Richard Fegley.
However, the advantage of large format
photography is that it produces high quality enlargements. Most
magazines don't have to deal with printing an image as large as a
PLAYBOY centerfold, and other than for art prints or industrial
photography, there is very little use for large format photography in
today's world. It is for the most part outdated (though I think it is
appropriate for the very specialized application of producing a PLAYBOY
centerfold due to the enlargement requirements).
I think PLAYBOY's reasons for wanting to favor medium format photography are:
- easier to shoot for both photographer and model
- lower light photography is possible
- shorter setup time and use of roll film instead of sheet film means
the shoot can go faster and posing can be more spontaneous
- less expensive in use of both materials and staff time
- opens up the possibility of using new photographers without having them apprentice for years first
I think those are all really good advantages.
Digital photography isn't yet good enough for use in a centerfold.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
Wil
|
|
Old Hand
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 12/05/02
|
|
Posts: 1049
|
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/17/04 12:43 AM
|
|
|
> It takes special training to be able to use large format cameras,
and very few photographers today have experience using them.
The first half of that sentence is undeniably true, but I'm not so
sure about the second half. If you go into a professional portrait
studio in any fairly large metropolitan area (one where, say, studio
portraits of brides etc. are produced), won't the photographer be using
a large format camera rather than a medium format? I would think
someone who is paying serious money for a portrait would feel swindled
to have it taken with anything less than the large format. So there
must be many hundreds of professional photographers using large format
cameras, every day.
If this is indeed something that new photographers aren't learning
how to do, all I can say is - buy one, and practice! It is essential
for professional advancement in any field to learn new skills, and sometimes that means learning old
skills for the first time! For instance, it is predicted that a
significant fraction of the US Government's mainframe programmers will
reach retirement age within the next few years, and the computer codes
that they have created over the decades are still very much in use. So,
to avoid a would-be crisis, many young C++/Java/UNIX programmers are
now taking a giant technological leap backwards and are being trained
how to program in COBOL for mainframe operating systems, so that they
can keep the Government's hardware and software running after the old
guys retire!
For as long as art patrons go to galleries, look at the Ansel Adams
landscapes, and mutter "Wow!!!!", there will continue to be a market
for large-format photography. And for as long as Playboy's customers
care about centerfolds that are "keepers", there will be a demand for
it here, too.
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/19/04 03:02 PM
|
|
|
I am going to be moving soon, so I was going through a pile of some recent SE's when I ran across the April 2002 edition of PLAYBOY's Nude Playmates. This issue has a profile of photographer Kim Mizuno at the front of the book. I thought this excerpt would be of interest:
Mizuno landed an assistant's job at Playboy's West Coast Studio with
Contributing Photographer Richard Fegley. "His way of lighting a
Playmate was a skill not taught in any textbook. For four years I
watched and kept notes on his masterful control of light and shadow.
Richard had a unique gift, and with his death last year the world of
photography suffered a great loss." Armed with newfound technical
expertise, Kim began testing Playmate candidates, and finally got the
nod to tackle his own Centerfold assignment with a California brunette,
Bonnie Marino. "I was pretty much left alone to do my thing. I did my
best, and Hef gave her the thumbs-up. Bonnie became Miss June 1990."
But he found working with the large-format camera to be confining and
stifling. "My style is spontaneous and interpretive. I like to watch a
girl move--to photograph the natural flow of her body. Studio work is
too restrictive."
So there is an interesting first hand account of a PLAYBOY photographer who would rather not work with large format.
Personally,
I would find it very very interesting to hear from different PLAYBOY
photographers on this issue. I wonder what each of them would have to
say, both newer photographers and the guys who have been doing large
format for years. I hope PLAYBOY's photo dept. will be talking with
them in detail about this, if they haven't already done so (and I hope
they would all feel free to be completely candid about it)...
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: Wil]
03/19/04 03:06 PM
|
|
|
Wil, even if family portrait photographers have the experience, I don't
want centerfolds looking like a studio family portrait!
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
KBOC
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/07/03
|
|
Posts: 4020
|
|
Loc: Rancho el Valle de San Jose
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: Wil]
03/19/04 03:13 PM
|
|
|
In reply to:
It takes special training to be able to use large format cameras, and very few photographers today have experience using them.
Wait
a minute, it's not just training, and using the camera is only a minor
portion of the skill required. It's also knowing about lighting,
composition, set design, etc, etc, etc. You have to be in control of
the entire space to the point that architectural talent is a huge plus.
The whole process has to be tightly controlled to get that one in a
million shot that must be done without the benefit of a motor drive and
hundreds of feet of film.
<---Picture: Kimberly Holland, Sweetest Girl ever to be!
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: KBOC]
03/19/04 03:19 PM
|
|
|
An excellent point!
To extend this a bit
more, photography is most definitely an art, and part of my assumption
is that the art does not end at the moment the photo is taken. Print
making is part of it; and in the case of a pubished magazine, the
publishing process is part of it. Why bother putting all the effort
into taking a superb picture if the reproduction isn't also going to be
appropriately good?
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
KBOC
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/07/03
|
|
Posts: 4020
|
|
Loc: Rancho el Valle de San Jose
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/19/04 03:23 PM
|
|
|
Yeah, but you're bringing economics into it. If you're talking about
the art of the photograph that becomes a Centerfold, the expense of it
should be justified by it's value to the brand.
<---Picture: Kimberly Holland, Sweetest Girl ever to be!
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: KBOC]
03/19/04 03:28 PM
|
|
|
I wouldn't question the value of the centerfold. It is iconic in
American culture, and it is absolutely without question central in
PLAYBOY's brand identity. It is the signature feature of the magazine.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
KBOC
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/07/03
|
|
Posts: 4020
|
|
Loc: Rancho el Valle de San Jose
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/19/04 03:38 PM
|
|
|
Exactly. But I've heard here and there that that expense has been cast asside in favour of using digital or inferior 35mm.
Playboy
would do well to stop spending huge amounts of cash on Celebs nobody
cares about and re-invest in what it's good at. (I think the cult of
celebrity has been significantly diminished in past years).
<---Picture: Kimberly Holland, Sweetest Girl ever to be!
Post Extras:
|
|
mozart
|
|
PML Queen
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/27/02
|
|
Posts: 1116
|
|
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: KBOC]
03/19/04 03:48 PM
|
|
|
Just to be clear, they don't use 35mm or digital photography for the
centerfold. I believe 35mm is used for the Playmate pictorial, though.
Before approving medium format, close comparisons of quality were made.
I perhaps have confused this issue a bit by complaining about the
change from large to medium format. It is true that I can tell the
difference, but there are other things going on that complicate
matters.
__
Peggy Wilkins
Evolution AND Revolution!
Post Extras:
|
|
KBOC
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/07/03
|
|
Posts: 4020
|
|
Loc: Rancho el Valle de San Jose
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/19/04 04:02 PM
|
|
|
I'm really surprised they don't own a good drum scanner!
http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/high-end_flatbed_scanner_review/directory_drum_scanners.html
<---Picture: Kimberly Holland, Sweetest Girl ever to be!
Post Extras:
|
|
SRMToronto
|
|
BBOY 2004
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/17/02
|
|
Posts: 6018
|
|
Loc: Toronto, Ontario
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/19/04 04:13 PM
|
|
|
Thanks for that great info, Peggy. It gives us great insight into the changes.
The oldest woman here and having the time of my life,
Susan
Post Extras:
|
|
Wil
|
|
Old Hand
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 12/05/02
|
|
Posts: 1049
|
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/20/04 09:51 AM
|
|
|
Peggy writes "of photogs who make routine use of large-format cameras):
> Wil, even if family portrait photographers have the
experience, I don't want centerfolds looking like a studio family
portrait!
Ah, but it's worked out well in the past. Remember how a bride had
her wedding portrait taken by William and Melba Figge at their studio
in Glendale, and they so liked her that a couple of years later they
invited her back to pose for the special bridal portraits that they
display in their storefront window, and in the process they casually
mentioned to her that they wanted to shoot her for Playboy, too? That's
how we got 1966 PMOY Allison Parks.
Then when the Figges shot another wedding party, they took an interest
in one of the bridesmaids, and that's how we got 1967 PMOY Lisa Baker.
And as for "family portraits", remember that the Figges (with
collaborator Ed DeLong) also shot Allison Parks' sister-in-law, Miss
June 1966 Kelly Burke. Also, remember that Gaye Rennie went to the Figges' studio for her high-school graduation portrait, and she came out as Miss April 1968.  
Post Extras:
|
|
donnjmck
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/03/03
|
|
Posts: 155
|
|
Loc: So Cal
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: mozart]
03/20/04 10:53 AM
|
|
|
I totally agree with you Peggy. I noticed the difference right away
when they switched formats and I just think that someone is being
careless. I didn't say anything before, but I hate the way they cropped
Miss March Sandra Hubby's centerfold. They cut off her hair and her
legs in a weird place. I realize that it isn't that big of a deal to
most people, but I have always been a huge fan of the little details
that are a part of the centerfold. It just seems to me that Playboy is
getting sloppy in the one area that used to set them apart from the
rest of the magazines.
Post Extras:
|
|
Wil
|
|
Old Hand
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 12/05/02
|
|
Posts: 1049
|
|
|
|
Re: April 2004 centerfold
[re: KBOC]
03/20/04 01:04 PM
|
|
|
KBOC writes:
> Wait a minute, it's not just
training, and using the camera is only a minor portion of the skill
required. It's also knowing about lighting, composition, set design,
etc, etc, etc.
Indeed. To quote a familiar passage from a best-seller:
"Robert
Kincaid checked out photo books and art books from the Fort Monmouth
town library and studied them. Early on, he particularly liked the
French impressionists and Rembrandt's use of light."
"Eventually
he began to see that light was what he photographed, not objects. The
objects merely were the vehicles for reflecting the light. If the light
was good, you could always find something to photograph." -- Robert
James Waller, "The Bridges of Madison County"
The actual
insertion of the film plates and the snapping of the shutter is not the
issue - it's the composition, especially the depth of field etc.
associated with the format. As you point out, the photographer has to
be in control of everything, because he can't just shoot frame after
frame, as the model changes her expression or posture slightly, and
then pick the best shot out of a dozen rolls of film. Obviously most
photographers don't like working with the large format, where you have
control so many things to to get it right almost the first time out,
instead of just letting what happens happen, and then choosing one out
of dozens of nearly identical shots taken by a motorized camera.
Certainly for the smaller photos that are published in Playboy (or
anywhere else), using a medium-format camera is the way to go. But the
centerfold is different. It's a poster, and it has to be shot
with a camera that produces a large image. So to the photographers who
have never learned the skill of using one, I would offer them 2
options: (1) don't shoot the centerfold, or (2) lug a ton of gear
outdoors, put a hood over your head, and start looking at the world
upside-down.
I
mentioned in my post that the Government is facing trouble over the
next years as their mainframe computer programmers reture, since the
new programmers don't have mainframe experience. It's not just a matter
of learning the language - any programmer can do that, easily enough -
it is a matter of learning the myriad of program features that a
software system of that scale requires, if it is to run efficiently,
securely, and robustly. There are layers upon layers of things to worry
about that aren't present in software for small systems, and it
requires a whole different perspective. Programmers who have worked
only on smaller computers would of course rather not bother with
working that way. But it simply has to be done, because the output
can't be produced any other way. And so it is with photography. Trying
to shoot a centerfold with a medium-format camera is like trying to run
the data-processing system for a Fortune 500 company on a medium-sized
server. The hardware just isn't up to the job.
Post Extras:
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Reply