Why does the master photographer's work make the whole photo feel dark?

I majored in this field. Do you mean photographic pictures or film photography?

Photos are not necessarily dark and bright. The former has many photos, heavy main atmosphere and easy to use. Especially black and white.

As far as film photography is concerned, it has the ability to show many dark details because of its early shooting (high tolerance) and abundant funds. Moreover, the movie is played in the cinema, which is a completely dark environment, so relatively speaking, the brightness of the movie is actually completely sufficient. However, in some theaters, in order to prolong the life of the projector bulb, the bulb is not running at full load, resulting in insufficient brightness when the movie is played. So the audience was cheated. Therefore, many viewers don't like those polarized 3D cinemas, just because polarized glasses will block part of the light. In order to reduce the cost, the cinema reduces the brightness of the light bulb, which looks dark and uncomfortable. So a good cinema is very powerful.

Television is different from movies. First of all, TV is for home use, so it should adapt to the bright effect during the day (you will find it when you adjust the TV mode). Secondly, early television took analog video tapes or later analog digital video tapes to shoot things. The tolerance of these cameras is far less than that of film (movies have only entered the era of digital cinema in recent years, and a large number of digital cinema cameras used to be film). You see, low tolerance means unnatural transition, and some dark areas are full of details on the film, but shooting with a TV camera is a tragedy. And many TV dramas are operated at low cost.

So I think it's just that people are too used to this effect of TV and have some resistance to accepting film images of comparative aesthetics. A series of despicable behaviors in cinemas have also aggravated this contradiction.