On 3/31/07, Doug Smith <dhsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I was in the Subway sub shop on Transit road in Williansville NY(Amherst,
> Lancaster or what ever the address really is there, a Buffalo suburb any way)
> on Tuesday. On the wall they had this group of four photos of vegetables
> which were about 2 by 4 foot. This is standard type of stuff for a chain food
> place except for the fact that when I first saw them I couldn't decide if
> they were some poor attempt at an impressionistic type painting or a photo
> with really bad JPEG artifacts. If you looked at them closely you could see
> the jagged curves that result from blowing a low resolution photo up too much
> and poorly. I never did decide if the producer and buyer of these images; a)
> had done it on purpose and thought that this was artistic, or B) didn't know
> any different. If B, has the public's standards gone down so much that
> something that wouldn't have passed as a snap shot 5 years ago is now
> considered good?
Without seeing it, I'd vote for 'B'.
Which is good for enterprises using images to sell stuff because it
probably costs less to produce lower quality.
my two lux worth/ScottGee1
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|