>"No one has made a digital masterpiece yet"

No.

>>2882569
>dat nasty digital sharpening
gross

>>2882569
I don't see how he could be

Unless in the case of someone has made film as good as it can be however digital media will keep on evolving and hasn't reached its true potential yet

For fuck's sake. I just read an interview with him where he flat out says that the only masterpieces in photography are black and white. He doesn't just shit on digital photography. He shits on all color photography.

Maybe Gursky is the exception to this?

I'm sure there are shots out there already. However whether they've been found in the millions of snapshits posted online? That's another question. It's also a case of individual tastes. What exactly do you define as a masterpiece?

Attitudes have also changed towards photography in the digital age. Nowadays there's an all too familiar "creep" vibe given to photographers. That makes it a lot harder to capture a masterpiece featuring people candidly in a modern age.
>>2882586
>needing colours to make your masterpiece
GET YOUR GIMMICK OUT OF HERE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2882581
Completely missed the point. This isn't your film v digital fortnightly shitposting thread.

>>2882569
he's just salty his sekret club is full of snapshit hipsters, like that old guy with his anime was a mistake comment.

I am wondering if any photographers have made a photo with a digital camera that is up to par with henri cartier bresson.

I am wondering if digital photography even exists. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I haven't ever actually seen evidence of digital photography. If there's never been a digital photograph made, then it naturally follows that there's never been a digital masterpiece. Perhaps he's on to something.

File: a917d5d6-dfe9-46e4-92c0-b8b0fd9b9580.jpg (246KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1000x667px

>>2882655
imo

>>2882614
>Nowadays there's an all too familiar "creep" vibe given to photographers.
What? It's never been easier to take candid photos. People everywhere expect to be photographed and recorded by surveillance cameras. There's no superstition or supernatural magic associated with photography. It's easier than ever to prove to someone you're an artist and not a creep. Cameras are small and quiet.

If you look creepy today, you'd not be any less creepy 60 years ago.

File: P11570_10.jpg (312KB, 1041x1536px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1041x1536px

>>2882698
So... no?

>>2882607

File: afghan-girl-portrait_1563_990x742[1].jpg (37KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x600px

>>2882586
>he only masterpieces in photography are black and white.
christ what a pretentious fart

>>2882833
>curry
>masterpiece
lmao could you be any more pleb

it's the picture you massive autist, not the photographer

File: ex-burtynsky-olfusa.jpg (243KB, 960x719px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 960x719px

Lots of Burtynsky's work is digital.

Therefore, no.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Hasselblad
Camera Model	Hasselblad H4D-60
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ed Burtynsky
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4800
Image Height	3595
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:13 14:13:25
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	960
Image Height	719

File: article-0-18A7420A00000578-646_964x721.jpg (232KB, 964x721px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 964x721px

>>2882874

File: ex-bur-veronawalk.jpg (377KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 960x720px

>>2882875
"Yes. I’ve tried every way I can, and film isn’t capable of that quality in aerial work. When I first started shooting from the air in 2003 I took a large format film camera up. I was using my Linhof 4×5 with a rangefinder on it, and ran into a host of problems. One is, because you are in motion, and there’s vibration, so you’re trying to get high shutter speeds. You have to expose at one five-hundredth of a second or better, even with a gyro and a copter pilot trying to steady the craft as best he can. That’s pretty much the fastest speed on the older shutters. To get that speed, you’ve got to expose wide open, and most large format lenses don’t render optimally wide open. In my case F5.6 is wide open, and it’s hard to get the picture sharp at the corners. They really need to be at F16, or better at F22."

>>2882877
I call bullshit on that. Today we have prosumer drone photography and people are doing long exposures just fine.

>>2882890
>what is image stabilization

>>2882890
long exposures on drones? I'm skeptical

>>2882836
>hating on afghan girl
lmao could you be any more of a tryhard contrarian

>>2882874
I don't dislike Burtynsky, but he's just a discount Dusseldorf photographer. Gursky, Hofer, Struth, and Hutte all do it better.

>>2882569
He's right but needlessly specific.

Are there any digital photographers that have great colors in their images like Eggleston?

>>2882918
>liking something because people tell you too
stay bluepilled scrub

>>2882960
> being a special snowflake
You downed that red pill like a champ

File: 1411419260001.jpg (165KB, 1000x711px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1000x711px

>>2882569
Depends on what a masterpiece is.

People be tryin'. IMO that's all that matters.

>>2883282

That ain't one.

>>2883282

Oh Fitz Roy, I was so close to you...

>>2882569
No. They did, but it's to soon to anyone gets it as master piece

In my mind a masterpiece takes more than 30 minutes to execute and more than a couple of years training to prepare for.

Photography isn't a true art form anyway. Its art lite. Art without the dedication - without the artist. It imitates painting, but can never communicate with the same power, because it lacks the makers mark, his presence of forethought, and by extension his determination to execute an accurate depiction of what he wanted to communicate.

File: 1305920845397.gif (1MB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x262px

>>2883351
>Photography isn't a true art form anyway. Its art lite.

You've been on /p/ too long.

>>2883351
you didn't read jeff wall did you

>>2883358
It's true though.

>>2883569
its not

>>2883785
C'mon now.

>>2883569
>>2883785
>>2883793
the pinnacle of debate right here

>>2882569
I agree there have been no digital masterpieces yet but there haven't been any film masterpieces since digital photography became the dominant medium either. I don't think it has anything to do with digital. It has to do with how the way we consume images has changed. A better statement would be: No one has made a photographic masterpiece since digital eclipsed film. The means of consumption are such that if "Afghan girl" or "tank man" were released today they would have been forgotten in a week.

Memes and viral media demonstrate the speed of consumption today. This does not allow enough time for a masterpiece to cement itself into the minds of people. If there are masterpieces today we don't have the time to notice.

What I appreciate in photography is1.) what's captured 2.) how it was captured. I don't give much of a shit about art when it comes to photography. I've seen some very nice shots, some very clever shots, some very well timed shots.

But I think people are fucking photography up for a lot of people by trying so hard to group it in with art. I don't think of even well captured images of things I find interesting to be inherently "art" as much as they are documentary. Certainly you can use cameras as tools to create images and there's a whole niche of people who love art and making art. I have nothing against them and what they're doing. I even like looking at artistic photographs from time to time.

I think it's pointless to get defensive whenever somebody says photography isn't art. I mean who fucking cares. Some people have their own idea of what art is and insist that photography isn't a part of it. They try to shame it and label it defective on their terms. That doesn't make a damn difference to me or what I'm doing. Same goes for comments about photographic "masterpieces" - fucking seriously? LOL

>>2883869
yep

>>2884051
how is photography not art? what is art according to you?

>>2882569
No, he's an idiot.

File: 536552_Europe-Comet-Chaser.JPEG-0e[1].jpg (115KB, 999x763px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 999x763px

Masterpiece is a completely arbitrary term. So if he wants to think that then more power to him.

But for me the idea is really super duper limiting.

>>2884114
I think art is more about expression than simple "pictures made by people". I realize that as a visual medium, photography will have parallels drawn with art all the time. But just like painting isn't inherently art (unless you count painting walls a solid color art), drawing isn't inherently art (stick figure illustrations), I don't think photography is inhrenelty art. That isn't to say however that no photograph is artistic or that photographers can't be artists.

>>2884115

this

>>2883436
sounds more like Susan Sontag.

In "On photography" she basically says "photography's not really art because it has to be perverted from its primary concern in order to be a creative process."

Cameras, by their nature, tell only the cold truth - painting and sculpture come purely from the mind of the artist.

>>2884209
she wrote that before the dusseldorf school became big, appropriation artists, etc. in marks of indifference jeff wall talks about the conceptual process of taking photos which is really where the 'art' of art photography comes through, rather than the aesthetic composition or abstraction of a single photo

>>2884209

What sophomoric drivel.

File: Rhein-II-by-Andreas-Gursky.jpg (70KB, 720x358px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x358px

Andreas Gursky takes pictures digital nowadays:

https://youtu.be/2ZZb9Mc-_to?t=13m46s

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6110
Image Height	3036
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:13 22:27:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	358

>>2884209
Roger Scruton made a similar argument (think of Sontag as a fluffy french writer and Scruton as a strict, more scientific practitioner). Scruton's big argument is that the photographer can't isolate and control how the referent appears, and thus isn't a representation of the mind, but of things themselves (therefore photographs are aesthetically pointless - they're just a window). He thinks that all the superfluous detail of the real world is distracting.

But the problem with this is that by using a shit lens and a wide aperture, you can get rid of that additional detail

honestly if you want good writing on photography you're gounna struggle. Even Barthes wrote some total horse shit amongst his ideas about death and what makes a photograph "special" next to other snapshots

The best writing is usually historical documentation a-la stephen bull

>>2887233
>hilla becher
Poor Hilla died last fall. :(

>>2887239
>stephen bull

where/how can I find historical documentation about this dude?

File: Z.jpg (8KB, 188x293px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 188x293px

>>2887296
he wrote pic related. it's a staple book on the history of phot, covers the different genres, makes basic outlines of philosophical problems in it, etc

it's strong because it's simple. Whereas a lot of writers about ph seem to go in a little too far

>>2882569
short answer is yes, he is right.

History is so cyclic, from time to time there is allways an old guy denouncing the new technologies.

>>2884209
you can tell from that statement that she was never a photographer

>>2887233
is this supposed to be a good photo

>>2882890
For what it's worth, a drone is a substantially more stable and "smoother" platform than a real helicopter. You get a lot more vibration with a turbine engine, a transmission, and a big single rotor than you do with multiple tiny props and electric motors. A multirotor can also hold a very consistent position by modulating power to its different motors, while a real helo has to do it by tilting the main rotor around, and that means the helicopter will "wander" around by a few inches or feet as it tries to hold a stationary hover. Drones are also designed as camera platforms, and often have power gimbals that can "talk" to the flight systems and can therefore compensate for small movements.

>>2884171
>I don't think photography is inherently art
you're right, neither is anything. you can't generalize it and call it "art lite." it's no different artistically than any other forms of media, you just create common artistic concepts with different tools.

>>2887385
He had to wait for no-one to pass and compose niggah.

That takes work.

>>2887451
the real work wasn't done by him, but by the guy who does his shops.

>>2882698
Must say that this one of my favourite photos of the 21st century.

>>2882569
Photography fact: any photo taken on digital won't be as good as it would be if it were taken on film

>>2882960
You were probably born in the wrong generation too huh?

>>2887590
Oh look it's retarded

>>2887385
>(You)

>>2887590
>>2887599

hes right, you know?

>>2887618
>fact
nah f.a.m, he aint right anymore than the other guy is.

>>2887450
I understand what you mean and agree 100%. I'm not the anon who called it art lite.

>>2887385
in real life, yes. as a 720x358 jpg, no

>>2887590
because film is literally magical. how does it even work?

>>2882569
>Is he right /p/?
Who is he?

>Is he right /p/?
>Who is he?
And why should I care what he thinks

>>2887590
As a filmfag, I think you should go drink a gallon of blix.

>>2887679
>what is a file name

>>2883865
lmaooooooooooo

>>2887590
>people actually disagree with this

File: REU-GERMANY.jpg (352KB, 1200x830px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1200x830px

>>2887385
Gursky's stuff is all about scale, a 720x358 image doesn't really do it justice.

>>2887451
You know most of Gursky's works are edited in at least one way or another, right? Rhein II, for example, had an entire factory edited out.

>>2887739
>Gursky's stuff is all about scale, a 720x358 image doesn't really do it justice.
Can confirm.

I've seen prints from several of the Dusseldorf guys in person, and they're really amazing.

>>2887720
>what is a file name
Never heard of him, file name could have been the faggot who took the snapshit for all I know.

He reminds me of some of the old curmudgeons I work with. They all loathe change in their respective fields.

Further more I've never been much interested in the pontifications of celebrity artists (or any other kind of celebrity for that matter). If their pictures are good I'll admire their pictures. I don't give a stuff about their favourite colour or breakfast cereal.

File: image.jpg (501KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1600x1067px

Did someone say digital masterpiece?

This is one of the greatest photographs of the 21st century.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1067
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2887822
looks like shit

>>2882569
Sorry Ralph, only wall/ceiling paintings and stone sculptures can be masterpieces.

This newfangled photography thing is something for porn-watching videogaming skateboarding kids that don't know the first thing about true art. (Which certainly is completely unlike porn, video games or skateboarding).

File: sub-buzz-25838-1468185914-8.jpg (144KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 720x480px

>>2887822
Sorry wrong pic.

>>2887923
this is the proof that Digital Photography will NEVER have a masterpiece.

File: Golden-Ratio-NYE-Picture-.jpg (82KB, 583x389px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 583x389px

>>2887822
>well street
they don't look very well to me

>>2887828
really makes u think huh?

>>2887822
The action in this picture is something else. I feel like everywhere you look theres something happening. Many different emotions. I dig it.