Didn't this already start to happen when Velvia came on the scene to give us that over-the-top punchy color in slides? I'm sure our viewing mediums have had some impact, but so has our social environment. Today, information is thrown at us in a very fast, concentrated way. All the media types do it - short, fast commercials, movies instead of books, etc. So to stand out from the crowd - there has to be something catchy. Photography is just a follow on to that.
Some of my thoughts... -- Bruce Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 11:12:44 AM, you wrote: mw> 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. >> mw> I think that the possible subtleties of "chemical" pictures are being mw> lost/abandoned in favour of "smack'em in the eye" colour and graphic mw> composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical mw> evidence for, but two people on this list in the last month have mw> mentioned it. My belief is that the preponderance of viewing onscreen, mw> using thumbnails to choose which pictures to look at in any depth, mw> reinforces this type of selection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
