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. 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. > I tend to agree. I don't think it's so muyh digital photography as web-based presentation (recognizing that the two are linked to some extent.)
I blogged on this last year: http://tinyurl.com/2e4c84 or http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?title=small_size_high_impact&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 To cut to the chase of that article - does Moonrise, Henandez, MN, work at web-size? http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/pdf/monrise.pdf Personally, I think it looses something... - MCC -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
