Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers
From what I've been reading about the subject, it seems if Playboy wishes to position itself as a magazine on the same level as Vanity Fair, or Esquire.
Playboy was, for me, all about the articles. Seriously. The magazine had (I haven't read it in a long time but not that long) really smart writing. Clever.
And the cartoons over the years were epic. I have that collection somewhere on my bookshelves.
Anyway ... it's an interesting plan to update an iconic publication. I sincerely hope that it works!!!
|
I haven't looked at a magazine in years save while sitting in waiting rooms at doctor's offices or garages. But just glancing at the ones there and on the shelves at check out lanes, I'm just not impressed with today's commercial photography.
By no means am I a world class photographer, but it's been an area of study, fascination and play for me for over thirty years. For over half that time I've learned a hell of a lot about photoshop and shot a lot of digital. BUT, to me, film still rules. I know when I get it just right, shoot and scan a 4x5 negative, the results just make my D300 seem obsolete, even a well exposed medium format negative looks better to me.
But I'm guessing the commercial magazine digital printing technology today might not carry that same look and "feel" through to the end product?