Alin, Amen! I have called it the squeaky clean look. A lack of texture. The cartoon effect is noticeable. I had someone call to schedule a wedding last week who asked if I shot digital. She liked my work but wanted to make sure that I was still shooting with film. Since I am, I got the job.
I think it best to say that they are different - rather than one being better than the other. In any given situation, one might produce a more desirable result. Bruce Wednesday, June 4, 2003, 12:38:14 AM, you wrote: AF> Rob wrote: RS>> Also the reference was RS>> to "flatness" which I read as subdued contrast/gamma. AF> Hi Rob, AF> Others (like grumpy me) understand flatness like too smooth areas AF> of colours with abrupt edges - the cartoon effect. But then some AF> even see this as a quality - note the general raving in various AF> reviews about the "pure blue" of the clear sky as delivered by the AF> "good" digital, as if the sky would have only one shade where ever AF> one would look for. AF> Oh well, maybe it's my poor eyesight that I see shades and AF> graininess everywhere in the nature. Or maybe it's the web that we AF> should blame for lowering the standards of the image that led to AF> the current trend of highly graphic pictures with less detail and AF> nuances. And now the manufacturers of digital cameras take it even AF> further with overdone noise filters to make aunt Mary exclaim "It AF> looks better than I've seen it!". AF> Servus, Alin
