>From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>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. >
You might have something there. I detect (not sure) (even though a Velvia fan) that there is ALOT MORE post processing saturation being added now than there was in the past. This is being done to both scanned film, and digital images. Some thumbnail pages blow my socks off at first glance. Going to photo.net's home page and clicking on the Daily Sampling mini-thumbnails in the upper right and then going to a member's Single Photos page, I see a preponderance of heavily saturated images. At first I think, "wow", and I compare them to some of mine where I know I left as is or bumped saturation only a little, and I come away thinking those images are not displaying the real thing and they're too good to be true. Example gallery: http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=327349&include=all My single shots gallery (contains a lot of junk too since I use it as a scratchpad): http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=400698 Even my Velvia shots look like Kodachrome in comparison. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
