Doug Brewer wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > >>>From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>>Overall - it was a pretty interesting experience. I always imagined >>>judges looking at my photos like I look at them - pouring over them for >>>a long time, looking at the nuance and detail. I should of put 2 + 2 >>>together - when you consider the numbers of photos they are looking at, >>>it's a pretty snap judgment process. And the slightest technical fault >>>can get your image booted... >> >> >>Your impressions coincide with my belief of the direction photography is >>going since the advent of consumer digital equipment. It would be >>interesting to get the impression of someone who has been regularly judging >>during the changeover from chemical to digital. > > > Not sure what you mean here. >
I think that the possible subtleties of "chemical" pictures are being lost/abandoned in favour of "smack'em in the eye" colour and graphic composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical evidence for, but two people on this list in the last month have mentioned it. My belief is that the preponderance of viewing onscreen, using thumbnails to choose which pictures to look at in any depth, reinforces this type of selection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
