I do not think it is better. What we think is good changes with time.
Many old photos look stilted and simple, but that is because we have
different tastses today than people had back then. The interesting thing
is the best photos from yesteryear are timeless. That will apply to
today's images in the future as well.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I have to come down on the side of overall improved quality. Magazine
editors who don't pay a lot and are used to uneven contributions tell
me that the work is noticeably better than it was five years ago. I
see it in the web galleries as well.
On Oct 27, 2005, at 9:03 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that,
while there are
many good images out there, they are good relative to most of the
crap we see,
and there are fewer very good photographs.
I tend to agree with Herb, even the overall quality of the images
posted to the
PDML has risen significantly since the widespread adoption of DSLRs.
Content is
often of comparable quality though obviously individuals attraction
to certain
subject matter varies. There are a lot of images that I've seen
posted here in
the last few years that I'd happily hang on my wall. Of the other
non-photo
centric lists that I subscribe to I've also seen a marked improvement
in the
general quality of images presented too.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
