Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
El General Moderator
Gallery: 35 photos
Best ofs: 7
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
Thanks. The world looked much more interesting and photogenic back then, now every city and people in them looks almost identical to each other.
The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
Gallery: 73 photos
Best ofs: 2
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
Pekka wrote in post #17798655
I wonder how the prints smelled (french fries?)
Perhaps like french fries, but they were gluten-free!
PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Joined Aug 2007
Post edited over 3 years ago by Nathan.
Dec 01, 2015 09:04 as a reply to @ Pekka's post |
I often wonder about whether this is really true. I think things look more interesting because they are less familiar. We're too accustomed to the world around us that we are desensitized to its beauty. I look back and see that the 70s and 80s made for interesting photographs, perhaps because the fashion and technology trends of those times are so identifiable. Perhaps people will look back at the 90s and 2000s and see some quirky art that some of us don't quite grasp. Or maybe it's because digital photography has numbed us all - photos are too sharp, too clear, too "perfect". The nostalgia and difficulty of capturing an image might not exist today as it did before. For these same reasons, photographers look for far-secluded regions of the world to find humanity in their photographs.