Print media has been trying real hard to keep up with the speed of
electronic information. They've sacrificed quality for speed in the
last few years.
For any news event now, the first image out of the gate is typically a
small JPG or video capture, which just isn't suited to print. I can't
believe some of the stuff the NY Times has printed, but it's probably
the only thing on hand at press time.
I remember when Time and Newsweek went to color, around the late 70's .
. . the reproduction was really good, it was all Kodachrome or E-6.
Then sometime in the 80's everything went to C-41, and quality took a
back seat to speed. For glossy print media, transparency film and
photomechanical reproduction still has advantages, IMO.
[start personal rant]
Sports photography is now all ISO 800-3200 color neg, all 1/4000 sec.
and all the atheletes look orange. Why do the photo editors like the
basketball to appear frozen, instead of trying to show the speed and
drama of the game? OK, I'm digressing . . . but find a 20 yr. old issue
of SI, compare it to this week's, and you'll see what I'm talking
about. As digital gets better I hope print reproduction improves.
[end personal rant]
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >