|
|
|
Some people ask the question of whether the digital photography revolution is necessarily a good thing. It is easier, faster and cheaper than ever before to capture memorable moments for later viewing. Because of this, digital photos often feel more real than traditional film-based images, as dozens or hundreds of images can be snapped continuously at no cost without interrupting the flow of a moment in order to have participants re-create it for a picture. Because of this essential freedom to review, arrange, and remove unwanted images, we are far more generous with our shutters than was generally the case with more expensive film-based methods of image capture. Because of inexpensive storage however, many people never bother to remove most unnecessary images, resulting in bloated virtual albums with duplicates, accidental pictures of thumbs, uninspiring shots of brick walls, pavement, and more. However, because of this essentially greater freedom to snap, some make the argument that many of our images have less value. This is tricky territory, however whos to say that a plastic bag lying on the sidewalk isnt lovely, or that an overexposed picture of Fluffy the dog isnt artistic or as valuable as a more traditional family photo? In the end, theres not much point arguing about taste. One thing is certain, though as more and more cameras find their way into more hands, the numbers of images available on line are sure to continue to multiply and whether good, bad, or ugly, each of these images has meaning for someone. And when you get down to it, individual freedom is one thing we can all likely agree on. |
加入最爱