Judging Photos

[Tom C]

>From: mike wilson <m.9.wilson at ntlworld.com>

>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>>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.