Let's say you've never seen this picture before. What would be your reaction if someone posted this on /p/ today in a Recent photo thread?
>OMG BEST PICTURE EVAR?!
>>2792833
i'd scroll right by it honestly
maybe link them a tutorial on scanning negatives if i knew it was film, otherwise suggest that they apply a graduated filter in lightroom or photoshop to brighten the sky so it doesn't become black
>>2792833
I would laugh as all the fucktard 14 year old gearfags of /p/ gave their 'expert' opinions of what is wrong with Ansel's work just like they did with the Magnum photographer bait thread a while back.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Photographer Joe Munroe Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4010 Image Height 2747 Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:09:23 12:48:29 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 4010 Image Height 2747
>liking Ansel Adams unironically
how is everyone's second year of photography treating them?
>>2792876
for those that don't know why this is a troll, popular doesn't mean good or free from flaws
yet a one or two chucklefucks wouldn't stop posting "HAHAHAHA" in all caps with reaction images as if people thinking that photos from a manum photographer could have flaws is hilarious
>>2792885
>Still defending your stupidity weeks and weeks later... That thread was fucking hilarious and it's great to see fucktards like yourself still trying to dig yourself out of your hole all this time later...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Unknown Horizontal Resolution 0 dpi Vertical Resolution 0 dpi Image Created 2010:10:16 20:45:06 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 413 Image Height 395
>>2792891
>That thread was fucking hilarious
Actually it wasn't. It was a textbook case of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Everyone (or just you?) posted reaction images instead of addressing the arguments.
>>2792897
Keep digging
internet forums were a mistake.
>>2792899
Nice digger picture
>>2792833
I've actually never seen it, I would've said "cool dude, great photo, post more stuff". Then I would've kept scrolling or something like that.
>>2792876
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Wintermute Image-Specific Properties:
If I hadn't seen this picture before, and this copy/scan of it was presented, I would say it's shit. It has 3 tones: black, white and a single gray. This is not what the original looks like as evidenced in >>2792876
>>2792833
>Let's say you've never seen this picture before.
Never have, so sure.
>What would be your reaction if someone posted this on /p/ today in a Recent photo thread?
Think 'that's nice' and scroll past.
>thinking a picture is good just because a certain person took it
A photograph should be based on itself, its context, and the photographs it is accompanied with.
>I would laugh as all the fucktard 14 year old gearfags of /p/ gave their 'expert' opinions of what is wrong with Ansel's work just like they did with the Magnum photographer bait thread a while back.
Just because muh gilden took it doesn't make the picture good, nor does saying one of his meh pics is bad imply that Gilden is shit.
>>2792989
>Never have, so sure.
fuckin' lol. so happy that you teach teenagers photography.
>>2792998
Eh, the only thing I think is remotely special about this shot is the whole "I saw the light and managed to set up my camera and set exposure in like a minute before I lost the light shining on those gravestones" bit.
>>2792880
Fine, thanks.
>>2792998
>so happy that you teach teenagers photography.
What?
>>2793000
It doesn't matter what you think of the photo. It's one of Ansel Adams's most famous, and not knowing it is like saying you're into music but have never listened to the Beatles.
>>2793012
I wouldn't at all say it's his most famous. His Yosemite shots are the ones I've always seen spammed everywhere.
>>2793016
google that shit.
it's even in his wikipedia as "one of his most famous".
>>2793012
so? they're just a pop band.
why do people need to know every famous thing to satisfy you? that can't be the extent of what makes something important to you.
i'd say it's very derivative of ansel adams.
>>2793042
Because google can tell me what pictures I've seen in my art class books, randomly posted around in the world, etc.
As for wikipedia calling it "one of his most famous", that just requires someone to have said that in print somewhere.
In any event, I'm willing to be you any amount of money that the majority of shots from shit like the grand canyon, etc, are far more recognizable by laypeople (if they even know AA).
>>2792833
The original isn't this fucked up with such crushed blacks, and muddy messed up gamma.
Anyway, it's still an uninteresting photo desu.
Here's a much better one with a similar theme.
source:
http://suprada.com/phototalks/archives/160
Youngsters don't understand the concept of time so this will be lost on pretty much everyone.
Regardless, there were few photographs at the time it was published; and it was regarded to be a completely unique visualisation and execution of a view that next to nobody had seen before. Few had freedom of movement or the time/finance to such expeditions, let alone the equipment to create such an image. Development techniques like dodging and burning were only used creatively by a select few, further bringing out the fascination so many had in the image.
Compositionally, there are no faults. Everything has reason for being how it is; the framing, the tonality, the three vastly contrasting planes, the break between the lower two accentuated by the glorious mountain range. The way the gravestones pop out so eerily yet peacefully, the snowy peaks of the mountains, the huge depth in the sky brought out by the abyssal black, shadowy band in front of the mountains. Perfect capture of an unusual skyscape. You can go on and on with all the details and how they pop out, it's endless and why has been so popular.
Whether or not /p/retentious art students think they could have taken it (or perhaps even better) they didn't. Ansel Adams did. That's all that matters really.
It's a matter of one person against the other, but the hatred strikes many (such as myself) as synonymous with jealousy; the product of over-inflated egos and a desire for fame and respect that is almost invariably not backed up with anything remotely deserving of such. You come across like kids that had pussy parents and you never lost your toddler tantrums. It's the gayest shit to endure, really. I rarely come on this board now because it comprises at least half of the posts made, and it's left me with a level of cynicism I wish I didn't have. Takes the fun out of something that is supposed to be pure creativity.
Looking forward to nobody on this board recognising anything I just said. Carry on as usual.
>>2793061
that photo is breathtaking
>>2792876
Can you link the thread because I missed it. Maybe its in archives?
>>2793121
>Everything has reason for being how it is; the framing, the tonality, the three vastly contrasting planes, the break between the lower two accentuated by the glorious mountain range.
Except that's not the case at all.
Adams said himself all that struck him about the scene was how the light was glinting off of the gravestones. He went into human meter mode because he had only a couple of minutes to get his camera set up, set exposure, and take the shot. There's nothing that was deeply considered.
In the classes I've been in where this shot was brought up, it was mainly just brought up as an example of why it's important to internalize the zone system because some situations will be very fleeting and you won't have time to do the metering you want (this was mainly in a couple of LF classes I took, smaller formats with built in meters this doesn't matter as much, nor does it matter at all these days with things like cell phone meters).
>>2792833
i love this picture.
the graveyard is really powerful. it's quite a spooky picture really. what a beautiful scene.
>>2793128
>There's nothing that was deeply considered
If a stupid person spends 2 minutes on something then it isn't deeply considered. If an expert who is also highly intellectual spends 2 minutes on something it is deeply considered. It might not have been deeply considered in his eyes, because he is a king amongst fools. Your clue which you even manage to mention in the same sentence is "went into human meter mode", and out comes a picture that alone made him millions of dollars and the respect of almost all non-pretentious fucktards.
>>2793133
He didn't spend two minutes on it.
He literally was driving by, glanced at the scene, decided to take the shot, slammed on his brakes, threw together his setup, set it, then hit the shutter release. That's it.
>>2793128
I don't think you've grasped what I mean. "Reason for being how it is" doesn't necessarily have to mean mean that it is a conscious effort from the photographer. Aside from geometric movement, a human doesn't move mountains. It is a decision of whether to take the photograph or not, and more importantly seeing and realising its reason. Perhaps my use of the word reason is alien to you; read some Schopenhauer/Heidegger if you are interested.
>>2792833
I've been thinking about making a thread about this pic. I saw it years ago and didn't think it was special but I knew nothing about photography back then. I know a lot more now and I still don;t think it's special. If I took it I wouldn't even share it.
>>2793167
Oh hell, bringing out some philosophy 101 on us here.
Let me guess, you write essays non-ironically using Freud and/or Jung in analysis, don't you?
>>2793055
Again, it doesn't matter if YOU'VE seen it, it's still a famous photo.
There's something very comfy about your myopia validating your opinions.
>>2793191
I never claimed it wasn't famous.
>>2793192
Oh, I get it. It's famous, but not SUPER DUPER famous because you've never heard of it?
>>2793212
I never said I never heard of it.
Fuck judging by this thread, I'm one of the only people who know the circumstances in which it was taken who bother browsing /p/.
>>2793178
No. They are both frauds. But if you feel small think whatever you like.
>>2793214
>the circumstances
Only the final image matters, faggot. How's photo 101 treating you?
>>2793227
>They are both frauds
explain why.
>>2793229
>Only the final image matters, faggot.
And from that respect it's not that impressive of an image. It's definitely far better when you see it printed, but it's still not all that defendable as an artistic work.
>How's photo 101 treating you?
>pulling out a photo 101 insult right after a philosophy 101 insult was thrown
If your art is as creative as your use of language, I have some bad news for you...
My tastes are simple, but it's a place I haven't seen before, and I like the 'moonified' earth landscape being compared to the actual moon. I like it.
>>2793234
>It's definitely far better when you see it printed, but it's still not all that defendable as an artistic work.
kek
>Posts shitty repro of a meh picture
>people make predictable replies
i bet u think ur soooo sm4rt huh????
>>2792833
Honestly I would compliment the person, ask for more and probably save it to inspire my own shots. It's a gorgeous picture in my opinion, and I don't give a fuck what some mouth breathing idiot says on an indonesian fanfiction forum.
>>2793233
Induction masked as deduction.
I wouldn't give it a second glance. I barely do even knowing who shot it really because it's some of his weakest work.
You don't have to like a photo just because someone famous took it, you know.
Yet again the 14 year old gear fag fucktards of /p/ show a complete lack of understanding about even the most basic aspect of photography away from arguments about 'FF'vs crop / sony vs fuji / mirrorless vs dSLR / .....
It's not surprising that they can't recognise a great photograph given the constant stream of shit the flows online from flickr, instagram, 500px, and the like... Fuck, these days people call buying cameras and talking about them 'doing photography' instead of acutally making photographs.
Maybe with the addition of a narcissistic fucktard millennial added into the shoot it might be good enough for the masters of /p/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D700 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 982 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 105 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4015 Image Height 2832 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:15 10:27:33 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Flash Flash No Flash Focal Length 105.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2781 Image Height 2220 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2793352
hokay there kiddo
>>2792833
>It's beautiful
>>2793016
I'm gonna spam everywhere on your face nigga
>>2792833
Honestly, I'd say the bottom third feels a little underexposed and flat. But knowing what he had to do to get it to even look like this, it's amazing he was even able to do it.
>>2792876
The thing I've come to understand about a lot of Magnum photographers whose work appears questionable on the face of it, is that they're often working with a thesis or philosophy behind them. So without that component to contextualize their work, it often doesn't make sense and appears to lack any merit.
That's just the way art works, and indeed the whole point of it.
>>2793775
>That's just the way art works, and indeed the whole point of it.
...
>>2793775
>That's just the way art works
But the author is dead as fuck bro. Intend is useless.
>>2793352
lel, that's perfect, exactly what a similar photo from a pretentious retard would look like.
>>2793776
What's disagreeable about stating that art is about communicating something? Is there really any other reason why it's done?
>>2793352
This.
Literally any decent shot of an otherwise beautiful landscape on instagram HAS to have the self-absorbed 20-something fuckwit who went to said location on a whim and daddy's dime, probably just for the bragging rights.
>>2793846
Or his girlfriend. For even more bragging rights.
>>2793352
The moon rise photo of Ansel Adams is terrible (for Ansel's work), it is extremely mediocre and not interesting.
Stop celebrating mediocrity because it was shot on film.
Ansel has a lot of great images to pick from, this simply is not one of them. It's is snapshit tier.
>>2793352
Holy fuck, this is inspired.
>>2793144
>because he is a king amongst fools
Stop idolising people whose work you happen to like. He was an ordinary human being, flawed like the rest of us, who just happened to be pretty good with a camera.
If you got your head out of your ass and your ass out of the basement you might fine you could take pictures a that are pretty good too.
But you wont do it if all you do is fap over other peoples pictures
>>2794143
>who just happened to be pretty good with a camera.
In fairness, I don't think it's accurate to describe someone who literally devoted his entire life to understanding the entire photographic process as "pretty good with a camera".
I mean I agree with your point, but that's a pretty gross mischaracterization of Adams.
>be me
>post on /p/
>realize this board is shit
>lurk for shits and giggles occasionally, but really just focus on actually making great images
>pop in after many months of not looking at /p/
>see this thread
yup, still shit I see.
keep snapshitting, faggots.
>>2794158
>but really just focus on actually making great images
Can you post some?
>>2794158
yeah i'd really like to see some of your great images too
>>2794156
>I don't think it's accurate
Brevity is always better and it is accurate to say he was pretty good with a camera. Yes, he worked hard all his life to get there and deserves the recognition he gets.
But he was still an ordinary human being not some god-like deity who needs to be worshipped sat regular intervals. It's important to look at and learn from other peoples work, it is self-destructive to fetishize it.
>>2794170
>Brevity is always better and it is accurate to say he was pretty good with a camera.
It's more brief to say he was great with a camera. It's also far more accurate. My cousin Bob is "pretty good with a camera".
Like I said, I agree entirely with your point, but give credit where credit is due from the standpoint of mastery of the craft. As a craftsman, he's one of the absolute best. That doesn't mean he was always perfect or anything of the like, just that the fucker knew his craft better than the vast majority of people.
>>2794158
>but really just focus on actually making great images
>won't post any of these "great" images
>inb4 bullshit excuse as to why he doesn't need to prove anything to us
gtfo, no one wants you here cunt
>>2793278
So psychology then?
>>2792833
1. That's the worst print/scan I've ever seen of that picture. It really looks botched in that form.
2. This really needs context. This picture was taken in 1941 and exposure was done by using experience, not a meter. Doesn't change a thing about the composition or what the image looks like in general, but this would be a lot easier to create in this day and age.
3. It's still a great picture and it would garner appreciation here and elsewhere. BUT it would just not need the same level of competence and craftsmanship to create and ie. get less praise than Adam's picture.
>>2794163
>>2794168
>>2794204
>being this assblasted
kek, we both know no matter what I post, you will call it shit. all you need to know is that I've been exhibited through national competitions and had my own solo show at a large regional gallery. get over it.
>>2794435
Weak attempt, try harder m8
>>2794449
In other words you have nothing to rebut with. Nice try. Anyway, I think I've had enough of /p/ for another few months or whatever. Have fun arguing over bullshit.
>>2793127
It was shit, someone picked the bad pics all from different series and provided them without context. It was some israeli feminist photojournalism too IIRC.
