>From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Judging Photos >Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:04:39 -0400 (EDT) > >mike wilson wrote: > > >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. > >I don't think this is happening. One might get the impression that it >is so only because we see so many images on the web: On a computer >monitor "smack'em in the eye" often works better than the kind of >subtlety that a good print can exhibit (imainly because of size >limitations). If you look at what's being done in print from from >digital, you won't notice any tendency away from subtlty and nuance. > >
I think that's part of Mike's point possibly. The web now seems to be, pretty much, the defacto presentation medium for many photographers, and is no doubt the first, if not only place many viewers see a given image, even if it's printed. I'm generalizing, speaking of the world at large, not the niche fine art photographers with print galleries, though I suspect much of their work is also seen online first. I can't imagine a photographer with a "smack'em in the eye" digital image online, not doing anything other than creating a "smack'em in the eye" print of that image. To do less would be a disappointment because the print would not meet up to expectations and it would belie the manipulation that took place. So the public is seeing a preponderance of hyped up over-saturated images (if not content altered)the same way they're now used to motion pictures overloaded with special effects and scene changes so fast that a true plot and storyline no longer exist. An opinion. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
