AH HA! "Cartoon Effect" (CE) that's it, that is what I notice most about a side by side comparison of 1st generation prints. It has been very noticable to me, but I did not have a descriptive label for it. Thanks, Bruce.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:16 AM Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post > 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 > >
