Opinions on "Bliss"?

>>2925122
>apparently there was no editing done to the image
Citation needed? I always thought that image is color corrected beyond recognition

>>2925122

literally uncanny valley: the "nature" image.

wouldnt surprise me if it was some sort of psy-op.

>apparently there was no editing done to the image
a non issue, who cares. also, its shooped to hell and back.

>>2925129
>>2925132
>Former National Geographic photographer Charles O'Rear, a resident of the nearby Napa Valley, took the photo on film with a medium-format camera while on his way to visit his girlfriend in 1996. While it was widely believed later that the image was digitally manipulated or even created with software such as Adobe Photoshop, O'Rear says it never was. He sold it to Corbis for use as a stock photo. Several years later, Microsoft engineers chose a digitized version of the image and licensed it from O'Rear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_(image)

>>2925132
>literally uncanny valley: the "nature" image.
Best description of this image. It's not a field I would want to be in, something about it really weird and off-putting.
Definitely a very nice landscape shot though, perfect for XP.

>>2925153
Idk, its so bizzarely perfect that I love it, totally wouldve liked to see that in person

You can see it on Google Street View whenever you want, guize.

File: full_406051.jpg (183KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1600x1200px

I always liked this desert picture more.

>>2925181
cool

as much as i dislike this image, this should have been rhein ii. it captures the fakeness of everything without being superboring like rhein ii.

>>2925197
Kinda like rein ii, I get what you mean though

>>2925132
I never would have thought so either. Aside from the pretty much perfect fields and weather, I see nothing interesting in this image.
Probably what made it a great background image. Nothing distracting but nothing at all ugly about it. There is no key point of interest in my view and it's still a nice thing to look at.

The emptiness in a beautiful area is nice for a background. Matches XP in that it's not trying to be amazing but it does the basics well. The perfect background image but a relatively boring photo.

>>2925181
Yeah, this one is awesome. Basically night to noon in one shot. I really want to find a spot to get a good shot of the moon nice and low next full moon. I love how big it looks on the horizon.

File: sadness11.png (674KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 1000x667px

>>2925152
>It has been called an iconic image comparable to Ansel Adams' Monolith, the Face of Half Dome.[19] O'Rear concedes that despite all the other photographs he took for National Geographic, he will probably be remembered most for Bliss.[11] "Anybody now from age 15 on for the rest of their life will remember this photograph," he said.[21]

That has to be terribly depressing. This guy probably shot 1000 other images with vastly better quality, and to be remembered only by this single, mildly uncanny valley photo.

>>2926146
>to be remembered only by this single, mildly uncanny valley photo.

thats why you should shoot for only youself. people are dumb plebs that will latch into your most common denominator trash. if you cater to them youll end producing total trash and feeling void.

File: IMG_3611.jpg (89KB, 582x372px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 582x372px

>>2926146
Damn didn't know he took /p/'s sticky image

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	582
Image Height	372
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: blissb.jpg (63KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 300x225px

>>2925152
>While it was widely believed later that the image was digitally manipulated or even created with software such as Adobe Photoshop, O'Rear says it never was.

Guess it was done in the darkroom then.

Afaik pics like that often come out more like pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:16 10:39:19
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	300
Image Height	225

>>2926249
It was shot on velvia 50 IIRC. So the slide might look exactly like the background.

>>2926263
True, forgot about velvia 50.

tfw i have one finished roll in my drawer, but no one around here develops it anymore

>>2926299
Send it via mail

>>2926146
But you dont find any interest in the fact that it is so uncannily beautiful?

>>2925122
>apparently there was no editing done to the image
I believe it. I was driving through northern california earlier this year and I swear I passed by this exact spot somewhere near Napa Valley. I was just driving around and admiring how beautiful the landscape and scenery was out there and the whole time I kept thinking to myself that this place looks just like the windows xp background. It was driving me crazy so I had to stop and look it up on google real quick and sure enough the picture was taken right in the same area I was. I'm going back to cali next month for vacation gonna try and find that spot again and take pictures

>>2928427
I've seen another, more recent photo and the hill has been covered in vineyards.

>>2925197
Kek. Rhein II is incredible. If you find it boring, then your problem isn't with the photograph, but with the society that created such a landscape. Taking photos of old beautiful things doesn't bring them back. Neither does photographing the picturesque make the world a more beautiful place, for the place already exists, with more to be seen that what's captured. These just hide the flat ugliness that's all around us. To show new beauty, or display the world as it is now, with clarity, that makes a good photograph. Keep in mind that photos are not just images like a painting, but slices of ephemeral time made solid and seemingly eternal.

>>2926146
It is not a problem of bad photography. It is a problem of marginal utility and the commodification of art. When hundreds of millions of people see an image every day for years, the image tends to lose meaning and value. It's been used up. Think of most of our great masterpieces. How many people rally see them, vs stare at them b/c they're supposed to. Right now we are consumed by our desire for novelty, and despite it's excellent composition and technique, this photograph has been rendered one of the least novel of all time, simply by its ubiquity. It's not that it's not good, it's jut been used up.

>>2926249
All depends on the film, development, and exposure. Nat Geo guy with a still landscape? Seems more than possible.

File: Bliss_location,_Sonoma_Valley_in_2006.jpg (5MB, 3200x2400px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3200x2400px

>>2925122
>apparently there was no editing done to the image

lol

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:02:03 22:10:20
Exposure Time	0.6 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	46.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3200
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2928742
>landscapes always look the same, grass doesnt have a life cycle, and the sky is always the same
are you one of those /v/ photographers that takes screenshots instead of photos?

>>2928742
either shit bait, or literally the dumbest cunt on /p/

>>2928453
I really want to see Gursky's works in person. I hear that the massive scale of his prints contributes to the experience as a whole.

>>2932029
Gursky's photos were exhibited in my city years ago
i was never intending to go see it but my friend offered me a free ticket
i'm really glad i went - the prints are massive - does not compare at all to looking at them on a screen
you could say that about most photography though

>>2928742
>intentional re-shot to display how the Bliss location changed over the years
is this the most retarded post on /p/ right now?

>>2925181
>>2925122
>ywn get medium format velvia pictures as default os wallpapers ever again
why live

>>2933027
I'm ok with what they did with the digital one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL8BBOwupcI

>>2933027
>>2933027
I know, I miss bliss so much