Can any of you explain why this photo is so aesthetically pleasing?
>>2846971
a man died in that room. gruesomely.
>>2846971
contrast
>>2846971
Roxanne,
You don't have to put on the red light!
Does this make you think of a father losing his daughter to prostitution like it does me? Maybe the number of beautiful men it took to fuck a C-average college student crazy. The history behind these stories and rooms - those lights. The idea that these were created for solely women, the little shade, the theme and reoccurring nightmares. The violent, hot, sexual tone and the ragged geometry. The lack of upkeep. What disease and hate was spread out on those walls. Death. The disappointment and musk is the only effect this photo offers.
The lighting it took to take this stupid picture when the very focus of the fucking picture is a fucking light-bulb. What is this, after hours?
>There is literally nothing aesthetically pleasing about this photo to me except the The White Stripes color scheme and memory of that Police song.
>>2846971
There lightbulbs are probably just as new as the victims.
>>2846971
shades of red.
>>2847018
this doesnt explain why all of eggleston's photos are so great though, just that one is bad
>>2847036
All of his photos aren't great. Many of them WERE great back when color photography was a new thing, but now that it's standard, many of them have lost their significance.
Imagine seeing this photo for the first time when 98% of the photos you'd seen in your entire life were black and white. It would be fucking electric to you. You'd bring your family around to show them this fucking red in this photo holy shit.
Mostly, in today's culture, Eggleston's photos are considered great because we're told that they're great by people who were told they were great by people who were first seeing them back when they were great.
>>2847038
wait.... how old is he?
>>2847045
He is 76. The photo was taken in 1973.
>>2847038
Or you just enjoy them for their simplicity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jZ_HkaTXh8
i watch this docu at least twice a month.
this photo right here. holy fuck.
>Not posting the Glass in Airplane shot
Possibly one of the best.
>>2847038
by the time eggleston became famous, ernst haas had already published some great color pics, and he was quite famous (not anymore)
that last part is very true, tho
>>2847101
Ernst Haas is definitely still famous. I don't know where you get that.
I do agree with your basic contention however. You always hear that Eggleston is famous because he was one of the first big color photographers and people weren't used to seeing color photographs, but that's blatantly false. Color photographs had been around for decades by the time he was just graduating college. The thing that propelled him to fame was the fact that he used a color printing process typically reserved for advertisement. The academy, at the time, was very resistant to sexy, seductively saturated coloring like that. It was considered garish, cheap and low class, but he made it art.
>>2847101
Well that's why I said 98% and not 100%. Most, not all.
eccleston up.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties:
>>2847087
TAKE A LOOK AT MY GIRLFRIEND
>>2850401
you should probably just stop, then.
>>2847038
Ehhh, I actually enjoy lots of his photos. The lighting and colors are killer.
Ansel Adams on the other hand took some fucking boring ass photos IMO. Pioneering the zone system is cool and all, but except one or two shots I think his work is mediocre as fuck.
>>2850441
I like Ansel's pieces, but most just don't move me and I don't find most that pleasing.
Some are pretty good but his knowledge and skill was something else.
>>2846971
If figure you might just like the colors of red, white, gold?
Certainly doesn't please my sense of aesthetics.
Actually, it being so unsharp is very unpleasant, and I also don't like the general progression of the contrast in this image and so on. It looks and "feels" pretty shit to see this photo.
eggleston appreciation thread?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot Pro1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2013-04-05T09:08:13+01:00 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/2.8 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 8.50 mm Image Width 1024 Image Height 714 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2847038
How old are you? People can see in color everyday so to believe that color photography would have families gather around worshipping it like monkeys at the monolith is hilariously idiotic. Maybe if you were a child it would be a marvel, but the introduction of color isn't enough to warrant instant praise and idolization.
>Eggleston's photos are considered great because we're told that they're great by people who were told they were great by people who were first seeing them back when they were great.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Please explain to me then why any work of art is immune to this kind of retard logic.
>HURR MOZART ISN'T EVEN GOOD, WE'RE JUST TOLD HE IS GOOD
>DA VINCI WASN'T EVEN GOOD, WE'RE JUST TOLD HE IS
I love how this board is constantly surprising me with new ways to be a complete fucking retard.
>>2850500
>I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Please explain to me then why any work of art is immune to this kind of retard logic.
Not that guy but I think he's suggesting that because people hear that he's good and don't form an opinion on their own and just regurgitate opinions to seem sophisticated or something
I get what you're saying though and I agree with you but I think you missed his point
>>2850500
The difference being, Mozart is obviously talented and enjoyable, whereas most of Eggleston's work is fairly bland and empty.
For instance, many people would have trouble directly addressing the attached photo, and describing its positive qualities without talking about how all bland photos are actually good.
People post photos of old billboards here on a fairly regular basis, and get trashed for it.
And before you bother, a reply like "If you can't tell why that's a good photo then there's no helping you" it doesn't do anything to suggest you know anything that everyone else doesn't, so don't bother.
>>2850511
or, which now seems super retro and awesome, but back when it was taken, was just a normal car in front of a normal gas station.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 548 Image Height 370 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 75 dpi Vertical Resolution 75 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2008:11:10 12:08:24 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 548 Image Height 370
>>2846971
because you have shit taste
>>2850509
The main difference between this and a post on /p/ is that this photo is part of a collection of photos instead of the only picture an anonymous fag with a phone camera took in a month.
In fact, these three photos >>2850509
>>2850511
>>2850512
convey a clear idea across them and they even pay attention to composition, something that is completely ignored by the majority of this board. So if you want to ignore that and just call them "boring", or "snapshit" then I'm afraid you missed the point and ironically fall right into
>If you can't tell why that's a good photo then there's no helping you
You see, the subtext of this thread is "I could do better than this", but ironically everyone who is talking shit is too petrified to post their own work so instead they tear down famous work to make themselves feel better about their own terrible photos.
>>2850500
People see in 3D every day, and yet 3D TV and VR are pretty crazy to people. People hear things all day and every day, and yet the headphones that sound closest to real life cost the most. Don't be ignorant. Seeing someone do something great with new-to-you technology will always be interesting to people.
>>2850519
So what you're saying is that you can't talk about why the photos are good? Yes? Just so we're boiling away the shit, and stating the facts...
The amazing "composition" on all of these can be stated as "rule of thirds" as well, which fills the RPT without fanfare.
>>2850523
I explained why the photos are good, if you feel like they are not then post something better. Post a photo that you think is "good"
>>2850525
Oh man, the dodge, and then the attempted turn around! Pulling out all the stops!
>>2850520
3D and VR are impressive to an incredible minority of people. Remember 3D tvs? WOW WHAT A GREAT IDEA, EVERYONE NEEDS ONE TODAY!
What you are essentially arguing for is gearfaggotry, but the most realistic and technologically advanced toy that comes out isn't enough to wow people it needs to deliver more than just a new gimmick.
>>2850525
Let's keep going, shall we?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:07:23 13:37:22 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1196 Image Height 816
>>2850509
>>2850511
>>2850512
he was a compositional master. way ahead of his time. very bold too. he did americana and did it wonderfully well, he put the gaudy american identity in front of everyone, with screaming colors, with all its imperfections.
lots of color guys were too painterly, too romantic, too cinematographic, etc. too classic in the end. thats why they went under the radar and arent aknowledged as being as radical as eggleston. this guy was take or leave it, but not at random, you pick at least 3 photos of him and you start getting his worldview and compositional formulas.. he describes the world around him in a very systematic way without trying to humor you, or make you "think" with symbols, or yuxtaposing antagonistic stuff for "omgz neat" effect, or any hamfisted political statement. for that alone, he was a badass.
>>2850528
>>2850529
So that's a bunch of quotes you got from older guys telling you about him. Talk about these specific photos, about why they happen to be good. What is good about the composition? What makes it "masterful"?
>>2850532
If you can't tell why that's a good photo then there's no helping you
>>2850520
That's great, except color photography wasn't at all new when Eggleston was first making waves. In fact, people were practically bombarded by it. It's kind of like saying 4chan or reddit was revolutionary because it was one of the first websites.
>>2850532
>>2850534
lol
>>2850512
>or, which now seems super retro and awesome, but back when it was taken, was just a normal car in front of a normal gas station.
Fucking this. THIS is why they are interesting today, they depict a time in the past in a no frills sort of way. People try to emulate THIS today. SO MANY film fags seek out old cars or 'retro' scenes because of stuff like THIS.
Except you know what? That's not what the images they are trying to replicate were doing. Egglestone's work was simply documenting the PRESENT in a no-frills sort of way. This is what gives the photos merit even 40 years later. Nobody is going to look back on pictures from 2015 that try to look like they were taken in 1973. That shit has been documented 40 years prior. There's no merit to it. It's important to document the NOW, not seek out and shoot photos that could have been taken 40 years ago. That's worthless.
/rant
>>2850539
40,000,000 of people staring at their cell phones have already taken care of that for us.
OP here, I posted this thread as bait but I have enjoyed the well thought out responses and actually learned a bit about his work and reasons for fame so thanks
>>2850523
i mean, you can try reading a book or something i dunno maybe
>>2850571
Ooh, he pulls out a classic!
Can any of you explain why this photo is so aesthetically pleasing?
>>2846971
Beats me. Although the angles of the wires are kinda cool I guess.
>>2851668
It's crooked.For fuck's sake, a little correction would've helped.
That being said, the exposure is surprisingly nice.
