Jump to content

The story of one of the most viewed photographs in history


Recommended Posts

Photographer Charles O'Rear took a photograph that has been estimated to have been viewed by at least one billion people. Yet many people have questioned whether or not it is a real photograph, and if so, speculated on where it was taken (Ireland, or France, or England, or Switzerland, or New Zealand, or Washington, or Germany). The story is at,

I found the Bay Area hill in one of history's most viewed photos

Edited by Glenn McCreery
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know the difference between a real photo and a manipulated one?

Are you saying that Ansel Adams's photos aren't real? I'd consider that a pretty strange position to take.

 

Is something that's manipulated suddenly not real? How does that work? What does it mean for something to not be real? Is it like a fantasy, a unicorn, the tooth fairy? I can see manipulated photos. There's evidence of them. They are every bit as real as you and me.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA's photographs were highly manipulated from exposure, to development, to very complex printing instructions. This is from one of his printers who showed us the "Moon Rise" set of instructions. Burn and dodge times written all over it. Edited by Sanford
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA's photographs were highly manipulated from exposure, to development, to very complex printing instructions. This is from one of his printers who showed us the "Moon Rise" set of instructions. Burn and dodge times written all over it.

 

If you are in Tucson, go to the University of Arizona Art Department; they have a large collection of Ansel Adams prints, negatives, and lab notes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA's photographs were highly manipulated from exposure, to development, to very complex printing instructions.

And a lot different from a trite bit of primary green, blue and white eye candy - which personally I couldn't change quick enough after loading Win XP for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From point of view of media - black and white paper - AA did a lot of manipulation in the dark room and, at the lower degree, during the film exposure. For the viewer's point of view - I would call this the preservation.

"... Our perception of the world is a fantasy that coincides with reality."

Chris Frith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, the only reason it's the "most viewed" is its use by Microsoft or some such as a desktop/screensaver. It's not that people were "looking at" it, but rather that they had trouble avoiding it.

 

by that standard this is one of the "most viewed" drawings (here slightly modified)

 

Clippy

Clippy-letter-pipe-bomb.jpg.fc6e35a7aa566f2a95f54acb05f489f4.jpg

:rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm spoofing, because it seems people now in addition to wondering/debating what's real (or not), also spend lot of energy looking for "authentic" experiences!

I think labeling not real something you don't like or something that's been made in a way you don't approve of or think is different from the "norm" or "tradition" is just plain silly. A photo that's had two trees and a house cloned into it and a photo that's not had any elements added are equally real. They may represent what the camera actually saw differently, but neither entity is unreal. They are both very real things. Reality shouldn't be confused with accuracy.

 

Authenticity, I think, can be an important quality of a photo. Authentic means of known origin, genuine, not false. So, when you, yourself, have said that your work is taking on a consistency of viewpoint and style in a positive way, that's part of authenticity. It is more and more genuinely yours. In the case of authenticity, something being false, again, shouldn't be confused with its being inaccurate. Being authentic is being true to oneself, coming from a genuine place ... whether that entails cloning in a tree or not. It's not always easy to tell authenticity in photos, but the more of a photographer's photos one sees, the more one is likely to pick up on their authenticity or lack.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what camera gear the photographer used to produce the most expensive photo to date?

"Large Format Linhofs

Gursky shoots on 5 x 7 and 4×5 inch large-format cameras, before scanning his negatives to work on them digitally. Gursky uses 100 ASA Fuji film in two large-format Linhof cameras that are positioned side by side, one with a slight wide-angle lens, the other with a standard one. Exposure time: 1/8 of a second, f-stop 5.6 to 8. He needs this for depth of field, and the relatively low-speed film for the resolution. While any occasional blurred movement is discarded later in the process. He gains speed by underexposing the film stock one f-stop, and has it developed using push processing."

 

Andreas Gursky is a German photographer known for his Linhof camera. Retrieved March 2nd 2021.

 

Try it. You'll find it doesn't turn you into Andreas Gursky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think labeling not real something you don't like or something that's been made in a way you don't approve of or think is different from the "norm" or "tradition" is just plain silly. A photo that's had two trees and a house cloned into it and a photo that's not had any elements added are equally real. They may represent what the camera actually saw differently, but neither entity is unreal. They are both very real things. Reality shouldn't be confused with accuracy.

 

Authenticity, I think, can be an important quality of a photo. Authentic means of known origin, genuine, not false. So, when you, yourself, have said that your work is taking on a consistency of viewpoint and style in a positive way, that's part of authenticity. It is more and more genuinely yours. In the case of authenticity, something being false, again, shouldn't be confused with its being inaccurate. Being authentic is being true to oneself, coming from a genuine place ... whether that entails cloning in a tree or not. It's not always easy to tell authenticity in photos, but the more of a photographer's photos one sees, the more one is likely to pick up on their authenticity or lack.

Good considerations. But ones that still harbour too much of the idea that a photograph is not a photograph, but either some alternate version of reality or an altered version of reality.

It is neither. It is - shock horror! - a photograph. Not reality, except that of a photograph.

Is there a link between what you see in a photograph and what was before the lens? Sure. But not a fixed and defined one. And even still, there is this old joke, going that "the world was black and white before they invented colour photography". People, it appears, do tend to understand photography that way. Recently i had occassion to quote that René Magritte thing, La trahison des images, in another thread. Photos, no matter how 'straight' and 'authentic' are things that are created, just like statues or drip paintings. They are genuine photographs. No more. There is a considerable amount of freedom from reality in the process. Reality, whatever that may be, has no way of flowing into the process nor does it have control over its outcome. And the medium itself can never transcend itself, will always be what it is. "Ceci c'est ne pas la pleine lune au-dessus Demi-Dome."

Edited by q.g._de_bakker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good considerations. But ones that still harbour too much of the idea that a photograph is not a photograph, but either some alternate version of reality or an altered version of reality.

Hmmm. I agree with what you've said about photographs being photographs but am not aware of anything in what I said that would convey anything other than just that. We agree. Photos are photos and, yes, there may be a link between what the photograph shows and what was before the lens.

 

Yes, photos are created. When I speak of authenticity, if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I WAS NOT talking about how "straight" a photo is. I was talking about a photographer being true to herself. I was specifically saying that being authentic in photography has nothing to do with whether you accurately represent what was before the lens. Authenticity in photography, for me, has to do with a photographer's personal and emotional connections to what she's producing, no matter how she produces it and not matter how or whether it relates to what was before the camera.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you juxtapose authenticity and accuracy, Sam. And you talk about false and inaccurate.

I agree with your point on authenticity. But do feel there's still too much mention of that olde adaequatio ad rem stuff.

Will also be my aversion against such making me read too much of it into it, perhaps. If so, my apologies.

Edited by q.g._de_bakker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...