The story of one of the most viewed photographs in history

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Glenn McCreery, Feb 28, 2021.

  1. 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
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
    johnfantastic and mikemorrell like this.
  2. Clickbait?

    And not half as useful (to photographers) as a plain mid-grey background.
     
  3. One of the people claiming it's not a "real photograph" should be asked what a "real photograph" is! Oy vey. Our species gets stupider and stupider.
     
    robert_bowring and morrisbagnall like this.
  4. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Hmm... and it's only gonna
    get worse...
    [​IMG]
     
  5. johnfantastic likes this.
  6. ".Oy vey. Our species gets stupider and stupider "Vince.

    Best to put a blanket on, so it will all go away.

    Most folks do.



    file76345.jpg
     
  7. Photographer Charles O'Rear took a photograph that has been estimated to have been viewed by at least one billion people.

    Ha, Mac Donald's big Mac has been eaten, not just viewed, 500 trillion times.

    So, it is told.
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  8. Really? You don't know the difference between a real photo and a manipulated one? Or, further, a 100% CGI image?
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
    bgelfand and samstevens like this.
  11. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. His highly manipulated photos are REAL PHOTOS!
     
    tonybeach_1961 likes this.
  12. 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.
     
    Sanford likes this.
  13. 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.
     
  14. I don't consider this manipulation. I consider it interpretation. YMMV.
     
    Sanford likes this.
  15. 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.
     
  16. Again about "real" and "photography"? Come on...! Please!
     
  17. OK it's "real". But is ti "authentic"? LOL
    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!
     
  18. 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
    :rolleyes:
     
    Mark Keefer and q.g._de_bakker like this.
  19. G&R

    G&R

    Does anyone know what camera gear the photographer used to produce the most expensive photo to date?
     
  20. 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.
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.

Share This Page