this photo by gursky is sublime. i've always wondered h

>>2967606
VSCO Cam's M5 preset used by city folk what done found themselves in the country.

Yeah but what makes this pleasing? I can understand something like Rhein II, 99c, or Board of Trade II since they're extreme examples of symmetry, color, and scale; but Hühner Krefeld? Really?

>>2967611
Kind of reminds me of people walkin round, they're even paired up sometimes, and they got the trees with the little fences like you got out in public, and there's no apparent signs of recent human intervention, so it's like a little chicken society.

>>2967606
a snapshit of chickens on an overcast day?


Has the dude given up photography and decided to just resort to trolling people and see how far he can stretch the rabbit hole?

>>2967611
>>2967614

If you crumb bums don't get this photo, you may as well hang it up now. Go find an easier hobby.

>>2967611
one of the themes in gursky's work is organization. this photo feels balanced despite not organizing the chickens in any apparent way -- as in board of trade or 99c, he brings order to chaos, reduces a frenetic, random world to a single, clear gestalt. the ground itself is symmetrically arranged in a subtle way (you notice the vignetting and central vanishing point more in the thumbnail). the central horizon, neutral gray color cast, dead hay and total absence of people convey scientific dispassion. some people dig that, I guess
I always thouht rhein II was kind of snotty desu, this photo is not his best. Withnail and I did it better, with the bonuses of wit and self-awareness

Google "deadpan photography" and "new topographics" OP. Should give you a place to start.

>>2967621
How about you bask your shadowy glorious art knowledge and explain it to us dumb fucktard plebeians instead then, so that we hopefully one day may become better people?


Come on, make /p/ great again!

>>2967637
it's good because of the chickens

File: urbanstreet6.jpg (187KB, 640x639px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x639px

>>2967625
thanks for an actual answer

>>2967637
Eat a dick

not a lot of people know this but in his native tongue "gursky" is an anagram for "terminally dour cunt"

>>2967641
TBQH, any "art" that needs an explicit explanation for your average viewer to understand the "artness"/appeal/idea of it is a failiure as a piece of art.

It's shit, deal with it.

>>2967646
wrong. the general public is, as a rule, stupid, and requires elite guidance to recognize anything new or in any way challenging. you want art for the masses? go listen to top 40 radio or buy a print from that godawful hack who said he sold his shitty sand cave photo for millions, or a limited edition kincaid

>>2967646

>If I don't understand something immediately it's shit

>>2967606
Honestly if this photo had been posted in a recent photos thread everyone would've ignored it or said it's shit. It really is just a snapshot of chickens on an overcast day with a crooked horizon. The only reason most of you are giving it a second thought is because there's a name attached to it. Explanations like this >>2967622 are just coping mechanisms for people to remedy the cognitive dissonance they experience when they see no-effort snapshots of chickens getting recognition and praise.

>>2967639
np bud. ignore all the idiots arguing about 'getting it' or 'art'.

>>2967651
being this daft special snowflake material
please guide me oh elite anon for I am stupid and you are ENLIGHTENED

>>2967646
>>2967682
>>2967708
>>2967676

>doesn't understand the basics of art
>doesn't try to get education in art
>complains when it's too difficult
>complains when people point out that they're the problem, the art is fine

Kys son.

>>2967713
>posts shit
>people call you out for being a hack
>NUH NUH, IM JUST 2DEEP4U, NUBLET

>would rather sees fault in other people than the actual issue at hand

>>2967621
>>2967641
>>2967651
>>2967668
>>2967713
>Ugh, it's not my job to educate you shitlord

You aren't adding to the discussion. So far only two people have tried to explain why they like the photo and no one has explained what differentiates this photo from any other snapshot posted in the recent photos thread besides that it was taken by a famous person.

>>2967769
The actual issue at hand is you walked into CERN and called everyone a dumbass for using big words.

>>2967786
>comparing a state of the art particle accelerator to a lazy photo of chickens

No, the issue at hand is that you're afraid to clearly explain your stance because either you don't understand it yourself or deep down you know it's weak and won't stand up to scrutiny. So instead you act dismissive and make excuses along the lines of "I don't need to explain it. You just aren't smart enough to understand".

File: kek.jpg (244KB, 620x775px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 620x775px

>>2967786

>he actually just compared /p/ to CERN

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	620
Image Height	775

>>2967676
rants like this are just coping mechanisms for an inability to understand art, tbph
the fact that you're comparing this to a point&shoot photoon a technical level is a painful demonstration that you really haven't got a clue

>>2967812
...because....?

>>2967816
gursky produces sharp, large, in-focus prints. this photo has a horizontal center line, the field is off because of the chosen perspective, i.e. intentionally. you may not like this photo but your technical complaints are hilariously off the mark.

>>2967812
>>2967822
Any competent photographer can create sharp and in-focus snapshots, that's just a baseline. "The photographer didn't fuck up" isn't a reason to say a photo is great. What I'm looking for is an explanation of what elevates this particular photo above just a picture of chickens in a field, especially judging the photo on its own if you didn't know it was a Gursky.

>>2967839
and you've been given that explanation. keep moving those goalposts though, I'll remind you where you started:
>it really is just a snapshot of chickens on an overcast day with a crooked horizon
and just fyi, it's essentially impossible to capture this kind of image with a small-format camera. why don't you post some of your own large-format work so we can compare it on a technical level?

this is a large format print

any serious discussion based on a monitor sized jpeg is pretty foolish from the start

>>2967783
composition
colour theory
pattern

the same as every other fucking gursky.
If gursky is 2deep4u, then you're in trouble, he's about as basic as fine art photography gets.

>>2967769
If you can't understand gursky, you just need to increase your art education. There's nothing special about any individual piece of art, not is there a magic secret that allows you to understand a piece.

>>2967844
>>2967844
I wasn't referring to the technical execution of the photo with that statement, sorry if that was unclear. The only explanation with any detail in the thread so far is >>2967622 and it's a bunch of buzzwords that could apply to any number of other photos. It boils down to these points:
>No pattern to the arrangement of the subject but the photo is balanced because of symmetry
There is nothing groundbreaking about putting the horizon in the center of the frame

>There are no people, it contains dead hay, and it has a grey cast, therefore it conveys "scientific dispassion" which some people like
Any picture of a field of hay on an overcast day would convey the same aesthetic. Why is this one in particular so great?

Isi did it better

>>2967847
>the same as every other fucking gursky
>if gursky is 2deep4u
>If you can't understand gursky
>There's nothing special about any individual piece of art

So you're saying the fact that this picture was created by gursky is a significant reason this photo is considered great by many people?

File: Andreas-Gursky-Bangkok-IX-20111-880x1261.jpg (183KB, 880x1261px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 880x1261px

this photo by gursky is sublime. i've always wondered how to define the aesthetic i want to achieve, and this is it. anons please help me find more like it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Windows
Photographer	Andreas Gursky
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3138
Image Height	4499
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2012:09:19 14:47:28
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	2151

>>2967859
it's not just buzzwords, read more carefully. this photo is balanced but in a subtle way, the rows of trees converge on the apprent end of the hayfield by choice of perspective and vignetting. it's the balance of an unbalanced object. you know, subtle. but again, I'm not a huge admirer of this photo or something, I think this no emotion all-the-world-is-grey stuff is kind of snotty (and I think with gursky's early stuff he had a tendency to imitate other people's styles and experiment, it's only later that he found his voice), I'm just pointing out its design qualities

>>2967868
Yes, but that doesn't stop it being a good photo

If you did an almost perfect replica of the mona lisa, it would be worthless, because you're not da vinci. If you want to be a well known artist that makes big money, you have to put in the effort and years, and get lucky.

File: Andreas-Gursky-Gasherd-1980.jpg (3MB, 2730x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2730x4000px

this photo by gursky is sublime. i've always wondered how to define the aesthetic i want to achieve, and this is it. anons please help me find more like it.

>>2967907
Cool stove.

>>2967907
you jest, but if you told this board to take photos of their stoves none of them would come out looking nearly as good as that

>>2967606
Folks gotta remember that 8x10 is a slow format that's meant to be printed extremely large.

You don't get the same feeling viewing a 1280 pixel wide image of something shot on large format with an 24" monitor or smartphone, and it's bound to get lost in a sea of more "exciting" action shots taken on a D-SLR camera with 7 FPS and lightning quick auto focusing.

Sometimes I do happen upon scenes similar to this where not much is going on but something about the balance of the composition or the light just draws me in, but I find it almost impossible to capture all the details in a still image without it getting lost to edge softness and CA. These issues simply don't exist in a format where you can stop down to f/32 or smaller and not worry about diffraction or infinity focus bullshit, or expensive ass tilt-shift lenses.

As someone who's goal in photography is to capture the beauty of still moments that my own eyes see, this stuff is pretty important and most cameras/formats simply haven't caught up yet.

File: tumblr_n19jgaK2w71rgzxfso2_1280.jpg (240KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1280x850px

>>2967846
>>2967915
This is part of the appeal of Gursky and most people seem to forget it; he prints his works on a fucking HUGE scale.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1450
Image Height	963

File: PB193766.jpg (452KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 750x1000px

>>2967914
r8 my stove

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:19 20:30:11
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2967901
Thanks, that makes sense

File: 1d23e9814d679aab90ee4ccb761aeac3.jpg (939KB, 1670x963px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 1670x963px

>>2967846
>>2967915
>>2967918
OP here. I do realize that Gursky works are printed big, and I think the intended format coincides with a certain aesthetic quality that's detectable even on a monitor.

>>2967625
I found this article that touches on this aesthetic quality.
https://stevemiddlehurstcontextandnarrative.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/the-deadpan-aesthetic/
>In summary Deadpan photography is a cool, detached, and unemotional presentation and, when used in a series, usually follows a pre-defined set of compositional and lighting rules.
>The Bechers’ set of “rules” included clean, black and white pictures taken in a flat grey light with straight-on compositions that perfectly lent themselves to their presentation methodology of large prints containing a montage of nine or more similar objects to allow the study of types (typology) in the style of an entomologist.

I'm a babby in this field and I've never studied art (!!), but this visual style has tickled my peepee so I decided to come out of lurking. I'd describe Huhner as a work of two extremes: structure and texture, distant and close. From far away, or viewed as a thumbnail, the horizon and vanishing point stand out immediately. When up close, or zoomed in, we see units of texture (chickens, trees, mounds of grass). The work is an entirely visual phenomenon, vast and lacking emotion and meaning. It's a distinctly cold and inhuman take on photography.

I feel like I could use the Brenzier method with my Coolpix A (Ricoh GR clone) to emulate this style, any other advice that could help me would be great. Here's another Gursky that makes my point.

File: wau.jpg (648KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 1280x851px

>>2967939
and a photo i took years ago that does something similar

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:14 22:05:31
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2967931
Vapid. Juvenile. Commercial hack work. "Low" art.

File: PB193766-2.jpg (281KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 750x1000px

>>2967943
Oh yeah? How about THIS?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:19 20:52:51
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2967946
Starting bid at Sotheby's: $50,000

File: PB193779.jpg (496KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1000x1000px

>>2967948
Conservative estimate for how this would do in auction?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:19 21:11:46
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2967713
>Bunch of posters shitposting in a thread not even ADDRESSING op's question
>I post answer to help OP and tell them to ignore the debates going on that has nothing to do with their question
>get rid to kms

Keep arguing with other idiotic internet jackasses sir. I've helped op more than you have with your stupid strawman arguments.

>>2967946
Sophomoric. Intellectually sterile. "Low" art.

>>2968068
There's nothing strawman about someone pointing out you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

>>2967957
if that's heroin and you can establish yourself as some kinda nu enfant terrible, $50,000

Looks like a snapshit to me, but then again I have a hard time admiring photos for aesthetic/"social commentary" purposes when they don't engage with me emotionally.

File: dtime.jpg (2MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x3000px

>>2967914

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	15198
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:21 17:33:13
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Comment	a.a.m
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	800
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	PRESET
Focus Mode	MANUAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	800
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	50.0 mm; f/1.8
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	4549

>>2967939
great read thx.

>>2968904
stock photo garbage tbph

>>2967939
The fact that he didn't line up the isles perfectly triggers my 'tism. I guess you could say that's what he was going for with some shit like "He seeks to break the pattern of a mundane workplace", but still.

>>2967957
>that purple-ish red
Taken with a Leica M8, right.. M8?

>>2967713
>>2967622
Walk me through the picture posted in the OP -- assume that I don't have an art background like yours.

Why is the horizon crooked?

What is the subject?

Why is the building back right included in the shot?

What makes this photo stunning when it's enlarged?

>>2968967
>Why is the horizon crooked?
He got lazy
>What is the subject?
Chickens
>Why is the building back right included in the shot?
He got lazy
>What makes this photo stunning when it's enlarged?
maximum pixel peeping, pretty much nothing else.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (102KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1001x1001px

>>2967914

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:21 13:57:02
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1001
Image Height	1001

>>2967941

You were subconsciously aping Gursky whether you knew it at the time or not.

>>2968951
PEN E-P1. Leica never made a camera as sexy.

>>2968980
there is shit and there is ersatz shit and this is ersatz shit
glorious gursky would never be reduced to such a callow device as the dutch angle

>>2967621
>muh art
you're fucking delusional, it's not the 1700's anymore you edgy cunt

>>2967639
why is the light in that oblique form? just curious

File: thanksgiving.jpg (1MB, 999x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 999x667px

>tfw you're basically gursky incarnage

feels good man

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:07 15:27:35

File: DSC00149.jpg (288KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 667x1000px

>>2969842
same

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:17 03:12:26
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2969842
gursky schmursky you can't even take a photo of a tree against the sky without puking out chromabs all over the place

>>2969843
those palm trees are softer than your mother's tongue
get with it you hack

File: DSC_8477-1.jpg (4MB, 1919x1281px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1919x1281px

>>2969882

I know, I dropped my 28 2.8 when I first bought it and I think I decentered an element. It chromabs all the way out to f/11, which I don't think is right.

here's the fixed/updated version.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 13:36:24

>>2969888
this is what a car photographer would think of that gursky picture. you've taken his photo and added WACKY DISTORTION and NEON GARBAGE all over the sky. you cut off the trees and you didn't compose your photograph at all. you saw gursky's photo and thought "this photo is just a lot of grass! I can take a photo of a lot of grass!" and you failed miserably. do not pass go/do not collect $200/10

>>2967606

I actually own an art history degree and I can tell you that this is shit.

>>2970045

i shot that photo a year ago, and i don't like car photography.

so.. ya blew it.

>>2970053
I did not say you were a car photographer, I implied that you are as tastless as a car photographer
and the fact that it's a preexisting photograph doesn't excuse the fact that you thought these shots are in any way similar
so...ya blew it

>>2970169

Mad cuz ya bad and you'll never have your work be seen as gurskyesque.

File: DSC_0197-Edit.jpg (649KB, 1200x795px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1200x795px

>>2969842
>>2969888
you gotta stop posting this photo man

>>2970050
you gotta tell me why, because I think it's comfy as fuck

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:02 00:02:37

>>2970180
>implying I aspire to kitsch
how does it feel to wannabe

>>2967651
>requires elite guidance
Clearly not from you.

>>2970050
>own
not
>earned

File: tlg_12_95.jpg (211KB, 1024x515px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1024x515px

>>2967606
>i've always wondered how to define the aesthetic

Greenbergian Formalism

also known as modernist claptrap
somehow decades after modernism finally died it is back in photography. Edward Burtynsky loves this shit too but he throws a little apocalypse in there for good measure.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8765
Image Height	4405
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	71 dpi
Vertical Resolution	71 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:09:16 12:40:10
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	515

File: Homestead 27.jpg (285KB, 964x768px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 964x768px

>>2973033
I can't put my finger on why exactly but somehow pictures like these always look like fine art photography to me.

Something about that large format sharpness. Evenness of lighting. And desaturated colors.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	964
Image Height	768

Ah yes. The, I dont know how to take a photo or anything about color look. So hot right now.

>>2973070
it's the close up flat perspective more than anything. it's a view you can't replicate with small format (without stitching photos) and it's not really the way you see things either

>>2967606
i dont understand why so many people are wanking over this shit: it's just some fucking chickens in a field. The composition is average, there is nothing interesting, the white balance is wrong, and the sky couldn't be more boring. It seems like one of those photos where it's just admired and looked for a profound meaning (which doesnt have) just because someone famous took it

>>2973079
muh gursk

>>2973074
You can replicate it with a 40 year old film camera. Every picture from the 70s looks like this.

>>2973079
Agreed. It's absolute dog shit.

>>2973083
no shit? next thing you're going to tell me you can replicate monet with 200-year old oil technology.
you do realize gursky shoots film right?

>>2973089
>muh gursky
>muh film

Yea, and its dog shit.

>>2973091
>internet fight me
I never said I even liked the photo. frig off with your hot opinions.