/p/ - Photography » Thread #4296113

[9 / 1 / ?]

251KiB, 1200x784, william-eggleston-untitled-c-1971-73-lights.jpg

Anonymous Mon 18 Mar 2024 20:56:45 No.4296113 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4296114 >>4296173 >>4296219

How would you get the Eggleston look on digital?

shoot during sunset, pick colorful subjects, bump up the saturation, increase contrast, deep black levels, maybe add some grain...

what else?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Mar 2024 21:03:46 No.4296114 Report

Quoted By: >>4296121 >>4296122

>>4296113
Who cares? His photos are exceedingly dull and uninteresting. I cannot fathom why you'd want to copy a snapshitter

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Mar 2024 21:21:40 No.4296121 Report

Quoted By:

>>4296114
>I cannot fathom why you'd want to copy a snapshitter
Yet you do exactly that every time you press the shutter release :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Mar 2024 21:29:44 No.4296122 Report

Quoted By:

>>4296114
a nophoto

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Mar 2024 00:42:21 No.4296173 Report

Quoted By: >>4296225

>>4296113
If you are looking at Eggleston's work on a screen it doesn't make a difference. What made his colors special is that he used a unique dye-transfer process for his prints which allowed for a wider color gamut than a typical print. They were supposedly impressive when viewed in person.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Mar 2024 04:25:11 No.4296219 Report

Quoted By: >>4296223

>>4296113
In trying to find a reason to care about photography, shit like this does not help. Just because you made a fucking image does not mean everyone else needs to see it. As a collage of visual elements, the vertical aqua green gradient against the blue horizontal gradient is enough. The decision to include the powerlines is the only question and it's not worth listening to the answer, because the red diagonal is so predictable it fills me with mild irritation and such lethargy I can't even care enoug

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Mar 2024 04:31:35 No.4296223 Report

Quoted By:

>>4296219
>Nepotism beneficiaries nonart doesnt help
The retard produced non-artistic novelties and got into galleries because of who his friends were. The mid 20th century "art" world onwards contains a lot of shit that is objectively not art
>inb4 art is subj-
No.

Fucking ripoffs of old paintings make for better photos than most of what got into galleries then

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Mar 2024 04:35:58 No.4296225 Report

Quoted By: >>4296248

>>4296173
I have news for you... inkjet printers are actually dye transfer print machines. You've seen a gazillion dye transfer prints. This was a novelty, specifically a tech demo, in its day but true art endures and doesn't need explanations about the state of fucking printing technology to be good.

Imagine praising a photographer because he was the first to suck enough dicks to have the first XXXXmegapixel photo in a "fine" "art" gallery.
>It was the highest resolution camera at the time!
That's more or less most of steven shore's portfolio.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Mar 2024 06:05:58 No.4296248 Report

Quoted By:

>>4296225
anyone who has seen any film in technicolor has seen the exact same thing. exact.
>you have to see the original dye transfer print!!!!!
modern inkjets have a wider gamut and can replicate dye transfer prints perfectly ffs.

it wasnt just a tech demo it was trying to add a layer of craftsmanship (marketing) to worthless snapshits because large dye transfer prints were done by hand.

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