/p/ - Photography » Thread #3202716

[43 / 9 / ?]

807KiB, 939x1260, Monolith-939x1260.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 08:54:13 No.3202716 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3202734 >>3203016 >>3203113 >>3203126 >>3203330 >>3204945 >>3207351 >>3208949

Is this still the best landscape photo ever taken 90 years later?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 09:17:29 No.3202728 Report

Quoted By: >>3203901 >>3205144

>best landscape orientation photo
>posts a portrait orientation

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 09:51:02 No.3202734 Report

Quoted By: >>3202748

>>3202716
America was never great fuck drumpf

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 10:57:35 No.3202748 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202734
American nature is cool though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:15:50 No.3203014 Report

Quoted By: >>3203076 >>3204174

Who judged it to be the best? I mean comon man he cut off the top of the thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:17:39 No.3203016 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202716
i dunno probably get like 10 likes on IG maybe a comment

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 13354629-Man-inspecting-a-docume (...).jpg, 109KiB, 1018x1300

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 23:58:54 No.3203076 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203014
b-but the blacks, anon!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:15:31 No.3203113 Report

Quoted By: >>3203184 >>3203708

>>3202716
I can think of plenty of other photos that were even taken by Ansel Adams himself that are better than this. It's a great photo, but I don't think most people consider it to be the best landscape ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:39:39 No.3203126 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202716
looks like shit desu. what the hell is up with that crop

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 03:35:12 No.3203184 Report

Quoted By: >>3203200

>>3203113
its one of his very first, its what got him really interested in photography. But all he did was put up a red filter...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 04:04:43 No.3203200 Report

Quoted By: >>3203289

>>3203184
I just recently discovered what colored filters do for b&w. It's incredible.
I can now shoot some boring landscape and have that 1000% black ominous sky and great contrast
Ansel Adams tier fame here I come

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 06:52:47 No.3203289 Report

Quoted By: >>3203338 >>3203578 >>3203708

>>3203200
I can understand why that must've been very cool back in the day but now the same effect can be achieved easily in post with a lot more control.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 09:13:00 No.3203310 Report

Quoted By: >>3203320

well i'm sure in another 50-90 years all our photos and media will be obsolete because there'll be some future vr hologram matrix shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 09:53:54 No.3203320 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203310
yes but you're living in current time, not in the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 10:52:01 No.3203330 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202716
no

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 11:21:13 No.3203338 Report

Quoted By: >>3203553 >>3203708

>>3203289
Actually it can't. You can decrease the ranges, and tweak them, but only filter will capture darker range altogether.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 21:56:26 No.3203553 Report

Quoted By: >>3203592 >>3203708

>>3203338
No you can change it through color channels to get those darker ranges without clipping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 23:00:59 No.3203578 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203289
because it was new. Same reason The Beatles exploded back in the 60s but if they came out today they wouldn't even be noticed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 23:29:41 No.3203592 Report

Quoted By: >>3203708

>>3203553
You're not getting it. You can do more if you put a filter on. Camera will capture filtered range in raw, then you'll have more room in editing. Plus high end filters remove shit that is uneditable in postprocessing. They sell for this reason alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Dec 2017 04:29:16 No.3203708 Report

Quoted By: >>3203920 >>3204007 >>3204030

>>3203113
Agreed.

>>3203289
>>3203553
I guess you could, but why not just capture it right the first time?

>>3203338
>>3203592
This will result in a better quality image.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO trollin_boxxy.jpg, 21KiB, 467x337

Anonymous Wed 13 Dec 2017 16:34:57 No.3203901 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202728

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Dec 2017 17:05:17 No.3203920 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203708
I hope you have a very good red filter, then.

Also generally speaking, starting with a bright image and dropping the exposure will result in better quality than taking a dark image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Dec 2017 20:26:58 No.3204007 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203708
>l guess you could, but why not just capture it right the first time?
Oh l am all for that, and attempt to, and if l was shooting B&W film l would use filters as l used to. But with digital l am not shooting in B&W mode, so the filters do not do a hell of a lot, l tried them. So it is l do what l need in post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Dec 2017 20:54:46 No.3204030 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203708
>why not just capture it right the first time?
1. Options. If you “capture it right the first time” (ie, by using an optical red filter), you have the option of making it a color photo or a black and white. You have the option of controlling how dark you want the sky. You have the option of filtering with an entirely different color.
2. Resolution. In the days of film, every grain was sensitive to red light, so a filter didn’t cost you any resolution. In the days of digital, each of your photo sites is only looking at either red, green, or blue light. Since it’s two greens per red and blue, putting a red filter over your lens means that basically 75% of your photosites aren’t receiving any light.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO h.jpg, 85KiB, 500x688

Anonymous Wed 13 Dec 2017 22:37:56 No.3204089 Report

Quoted By: >>3204340

>It's a /p/ talks shit about Ansel Adams thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2017 01:00:45 No.3204174 Report

Quoted By:

>>3203014
Yeah, and he didn’t get the bottom of the valley
Or a bird flying over
Or the moon
Or a cloud in the sky
Or Bigfoot by the trees

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2017 06:44:38 No.3204340 Report

Quoted By:

>>3204089
>anon posts photo saying it's the best of all time
>other anons say adams took better photos
>>/p/ talks shit about Ansel Adams
Go to bed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Glacier ParkTrees_and_bushes_in_ (...).jpg, 979KiB, 2000x1551

Anonymous Fri 15 Dec 2017 16:33:55 No.3204945 Report

Quoted By: >>3205211

>>3202716
That's one of his earliest work. Pretty sure nobody ever said it's his best, but it is the first where he put red filter on, and then something clicked.

What's fascinating about him is that he did a lot of post processing. Not only filters, he worked a lot on development, actively changing mood and lightning of what he shot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Rocky Mountain ParkAnsel_Adams_- (...).jpg, 1MiB, 3000x2395

Anonymous Fri 15 Dec 2017 23:49:32 No.3205102 Report

Quoted By:

Btw, has anyone anything in colour from him in half decent resolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 01:27:41 No.3205144 Report

Quoted By: >>3205312

>>3202728
No dude. The real way to take a landscape is portrait orientation. Maybe you are just butthurt that you can't get a good composition sideways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 03:01:52 No.3205211 Report

Quoted By: >>3206385

>>3204945
And he printed a -lot-, and that post processing had to be done for every print. Moonrise, Hernandez was printed hundreds of time. The Zone System was mostly about keeping the printing workload to a semi-reasonable level.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 09:39:28 No.3205312 Report

Quoted By: >>3205347

>>3205144
>tfw started shooting on a phone
>do everything in portrait
>get a camera
>still shoot in portrait
I guess I just learned how to compose in portrait or something? Maybe I just like vertical things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 11:28:01 No.3205347 Report

Quoted By:

>>3205312
Everyone has their own style. I like shooting landscapes in square and ultra-wide but nothing really inbetween.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO moonrise.jpg, 822KiB, 3360x2500

Anonymous Mon 18 Dec 2017 13:01:17 No.3206385 Report

Quoted By: >>3206406 >>3208516

>>3205211
Never saw anything special in this one. Maybe since all I've see is is weird versions of it, but still.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Dec 2017 13:45:54 No.3206406 Report

Quoted By:

>>3206385
I actually agree. He *did* shoot some fucking amazing stuff, but I'll never understand why this was even printed, let alone praised by critics.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_R (...).jpg, 2MiB, 3000x2402

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:10:13 No.3207185 Report

Quoted By: >>3207339 >>3207340 >>3207505 >>3208516

Why do people like this photo? Looks like a snapshot to me, and I generally like Ansel Adams. The horizon even looks uneven.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Dec 2017 00:37:30 No.3207339 Report

Quoted By:

>>3207185
S curve + mountains + "God rays"

The reason most people like the photos they do is directly related to how pleasant they are to the eyes. They're not usually as interested in the technicalities behind composition or level horizons or whatever else as long as the stuff in the frame is what they like.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Dec 2017 00:44:57 No.3207340 Report

Quoted By:

>>3207185
you're retarded

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ESA_Rosetta_NavCam_20150131_Mosaic.jpg, 2MiB, 1919x1797

Anonymous Wed 20 Dec 2017 01:13:23 No.3207351 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202716
robots > humans

<table class="exif" id="exif1513732403242"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2015:02:04 13:43:50</td></tr><tr><td>Comment</td><td>-
</td></tr><tr><td>Projection</td><td>Equirectangular (2)
</td></tr><tr><td>FOV</td><td>14 x 15
</td></tr><tr><td>Ev</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Dec 2017 07:51:39 No.3207505 Report

Quoted By:

>>3207185
>muh famous god photographer
It looks like babbys first radial filters

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Dec 2017 11:12:08 No.3208516 Report

Quoted By: >>3208758

>>3206385
>>3207185
These 2 are the worst Ansel Adamses

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Dec 2017 20:17:58 No.3208758 Report

Quoted By:

>>3208516
Failure to see his dodging and burning techniques
To make a rather dull snapshot into something more artistic.
He did it in the darkroom with 1930 technology
Not in photoshop.
He talked about 11 shades of gray which you can see in his photos.
It is his darkroom skills that set him apart from other photographers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Dec 2017 07:44:33 No.3208949 Report

Quoted By:

>>3202716
No.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches