Anonymous
8/22/2025, 5:26:51 PM
No.4461723
>>4461569
While genres do come and go, ones as ubiquitous as "cars" or "landscapes" as there will always be photographers with interests that cross over. I think it's more interesting to analyse the coming and going of the styles and artistic devices within said genres. For example, look at the landscape photo you posted. You can tell immediately that it's a relatively modern (last 10 ish years) image from the
>bloomy haze
>clipped highlights
>narrower focal length
>fine detail
>limited dynamic range
In contrast look at picrel, a landscape shot from 20-ish years ago.
>Ultra-pushed dynamic range, almost nothing clipped,
>ultra ultra wide focal length
>bright, high luminance colours
>shadows pulled up with blackpoint left alone
>probably shot at f/16
>details mushy from compression, denoising and diffraction
I'm not about to say one is better than the other, to be honest, I've actually come back around to the more dated, hyper-Rockwellian style of shooting and editing early digital landscapes. If you have good resources to see older photos, it can be fun to compare the new with the old, and maybe you'll even find aspects that have fallen out of favour that you'd like to implement in your own work. I don't really have a point, I just thought it was interesting.
While genres do come and go, ones as ubiquitous as "cars" or "landscapes" as there will always be photographers with interests that cross over. I think it's more interesting to analyse the coming and going of the styles and artistic devices within said genres. For example, look at the landscape photo you posted. You can tell immediately that it's a relatively modern (last 10 ish years) image from the
>bloomy haze
>clipped highlights
>narrower focal length
>fine detail
>limited dynamic range
In contrast look at picrel, a landscape shot from 20-ish years ago.
>Ultra-pushed dynamic range, almost nothing clipped,
>ultra ultra wide focal length
>bright, high luminance colours
>shadows pulled up with blackpoint left alone
>probably shot at f/16
>details mushy from compression, denoising and diffraction
I'm not about to say one is better than the other, to be honest, I've actually come back around to the more dated, hyper-Rockwellian style of shooting and editing early digital landscapes. If you have good resources to see older photos, it can be fun to compare the new with the old, and maybe you'll even find aspects that have fallen out of favour that you'd like to implement in your own work. I don't really have a point, I just thought it was interesting.