I realize that the practice of photography means different things to different people. This site seems to be quite heavily involved with bird photography and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if that provides enjoyment to those practitioners.

There is another aspect of photography that is heavily involved in photography for "art" sake. The photography of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Brett Weston were such photographers. The F64 Group founded during that era was almost a rebellious affront to the earlier pictorialists. Everything in focus, no soft focus, stunning tonal gradation marked the photographs of that era. Michael Smith and his wife Paula Chamlee produced stunning imagery with film contact printed on silver chloride emulsion papers like Kodak's Azo.

I have noticed a return to a pictorialist output recently. Soft focus is again in vogue. Ancient processes like Platinum/Paladium printing, wet and dry plate collodian, bromoil to name a few. We can look upon the photographs of Sally Mann as an example of this resurgeance.

Having photographed for over 35 years with cameras that produced as large as 12X20 inch film negatives, I know what a fine photograph looks like. I find the recent resurgeance of pictorialism by some as quite appealing.

I sometimes think that we are too caught up in illustration at the expense of art. If one examines the early photographs of Steiglitz, Leonard Missone and Josef Sudek we do not find the ultimate in sharpness. We find instead that these photographs are often dark, soft focused and exuding a beautiful sense of light. After all are we not involved in depicting light and shadow. A photograph that tells too much, for me, does not invite the viewer to engage in the process. Questions asked, for me, are more effective than stories told.

You are correct that trends change. Remember that Ansel Adams started out as a pictorialist until one day he decided that it was more interesting to present his visualization of a subject rather than the more literal pictorial representation of it.

I would suggest that early photographic equipment was limited to a more pictorial scope. Lenses were limited in resolution and fidelity, correction techniques were not yet well known (or at least well understood), and photographic materials were limited in the range of tonality that they could display.

There would seem to be a parallel to the limited capability and fidelity of which an analog electron gun/phosphor television is capable compared to what even an obaolescent 720P set can display. Now that we have moved past 1080P to 4k, 8k, and beyond, it is difficult to identify who might want to go back. (And yes, I am aware of the interest in film and vinyl records, but that is mostly folks pursuing it for themselves, not others.)

So I don't know. I hope this will be an interesting discussion. For now, I'm at least a little bit skeptical.