"It seems to me, and I might be opening myself up to some hate and negativity here but oh well," So you want to provoke us. First: "feathers are known for their softness, that’s why we put them in pillows". a) Not all feathers are soft, they vary a huge amount, which is why special ones like those from Eider Ducks are used for the best pillows as others will prick you; b) irrespective of their softness to the touch, feathers have a beautiful underlying structure and usern4cr is showing that structure that makes up the plumage, and, importantly, softness does not depend on the lack of well-defined structure but depends on being deformable. Secondly, a fashion photographer might have no interest in the details of the structure of a hand but a whole series of people are interested in detail and specialise in macrophotography - his comments are akin to someone who because he lacks interest in a subject dismisses it as irrelevant. I have no interest in fashion photography but I respect that other people do and it is important to them and others.
That level of detail depends on what you are trying to achieve. We bird photographers trade off sharpness against artistic merit and all the other merits of an image from the importance of the action to the rarity of the shot. Some beautiful artistic work lacks detail, and that is not to its detriment. But, we love birds and love seeing them close up and all the detail where appropriate. An out of focus image of a bird that should be sharp is detrimental.
Not provoke, that is too confrontational, start a discussion? Yes. What concerns me slightly is the ever increasing seeming requirement for ‘sharpness’ beyond natural levels.
I did not name a photographer and will not, that absolutely was not my point and you know it, my point was much broader.
But it does seem to me this focus on sharpness creates two potential issues, the first is that the subjects cease to look realistic, lets remember the concept of post processing sharpness is all to do with micro contrast levels and the levels seen in a lot of images, not just birding but landscapes, real estate, portraits etc, are no longer ‘natural’. And secondly, people automatically reject otherwise very worthy images because they don’t fit into this current style.
As for the fashion photographer, they must represent the clothes/fashion in a lifelike and realistic way and detail and texture is normally of huge importance.
To me both types of photographer, in ‘representative’ types of images (not artistic interpretations), are looking to achieve the same thing, that is detailed and accurate representations of real world subjects.
I am not picking on bird photographers, I am not questioning the ethics of feeding, cloning out twigs, the general aesthetic of positions or the like, I am making a much broader comment on a current photographic style that is used in some bird photography as well as many other genres. I asked the question here because this is a very well supported area of the site with intelligent and thoughtful contributors.