Reading mode: Light Dark

Have Pixel-Peepers Attacked/Critiqued Famous Photos?

Go to last post
C

carlgt1

Veteran Member
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
20
Location
Philadelphia, PA, US
I was thinking an interesting project could be anal-retentive "pixel peeper" types critiquing famous pics for bad sharpness, fuzzy corners etc. Has anybody seen this done anywhere (book or web)?
 
There was a funny one posted a while back at The Online Photographer website. It clearly shows people believe or see what they want to see.

I've done this myself. I'll post a comparison image. The pixel peepers will pick the image they want to believe has to be better. In fact, I've reversed the EXIF data and they picked the image from a camera they say can't compete. They see what they want to see.

In terms of art critiques, The Online Photographer posted a summary of ten of the most famous photographs going...only to have forum type web-experts come and citisize them. It was hilarious.
 
As F&F says something like that has been done, on T.O.P. and probably alswhere.

But the butt of the joke was not on your so-called 'anal-retentives' but on internet photo-clubby wannabees who would comment for instance on a photo by Gary Winogrand ÿour horizon is tilted, should have used a tripod, don't shoot into the sun.

One can be interested in the working of the camera at the technical level [feel free to consider it just a black box] and still know something about the hisotry and art of photography.
carlgt1 said:
I was thinking an interesting project could be anal-retentive "pixel peeper" types critiquing famous pics for bad sharpness, fuzzy corners etc. Has anybody seen this done anywhere (book or web)?
Click to expand...
 
 
haha, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking (hoping) for!
 
wow thanks!
 
I think you've got the links you wanted ;-)

This is why I chuckle at people examining photographs at 500% pixel size trying to see differences. I laugh at people talking about "Per Pixel Sharpness" and other nonsense.

The internet is full of these web-experts.....at least we can get a laugh out of their comments!
 
When Rhein II was sold for $4M there was an outpouring here and in many other forums of "what cr@p" responses - and those people knew it was a famous photograph.
 
I think there are plenty of us (here and elsewhere) who are fairly convinced that the art in most contemporary art is marketing.
 
nelsonal said:
I think there are plenty of us (here and elsewhere) who are fairly convinced that the art in most contemporary art is marketing.
Click to expand...
Well said...I'm always amazed at the ability of marketing to cause people to drool over these.



 
Mako2011 said:
nelsonal said:
I think there are plenty of us (here and elsewhere) who are fairly convinced that the art in most contemporary art is marketing.
Click to expand...
Well said...I'm always amazed at the ability of marketing to cause people to drool over these.

Click to expand...
Yikes! That's famous?! Well, here's mine:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/8000, ISO 100


Mako2011 said:
Click to expand...
I think I need to fire my agent. ;)

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/1600, ISO 100

 
Sante Patate said:
Well, there is a list of the 17 highest priced photographs sold in the last 5 or so years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs - so, leaving aside the images of historical importance (Billy the Kid, 1870) are there any there you can see the merit of?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not an art critic, so what would I know? I did like Peter Lik's One and Ansel Adam's Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico , however. Can't say I'd pay $1,609,600 for the two -- probably get a D800 and a few lenses instead. ;)
 
Great Bustard said:
Well, I'm not an art critic, so what would I know? I did like Peter Lik's One and Ansel Adam's Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico , however.
Click to expand...
Isn't valuation interesting? "One" is a POS, IMO - the one image on the list that I think shows that some people have more money than taste.
 
Great Bustard said:
Mako2011 said:
nelsonal said:
I think there are plenty of us (here and elsewhere) who are fairly convinced that the art in most contemporary art is marketing.
Click to expand...
Well said...I'm always amazed at the ability of marketing to cause people to drool over these.

Click to expand...
Yikes! That's famous?! Well, here's mine:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/8000, ISO 100


Great Bustard said:
Click to expand...
I think I need to fire my agent. ;)

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/1600, ISO 100

Click to expand...
I think the only real difference between yours and the "Father of Color" is.....I might actually be tempted to hang yours on a wall in my home for all to see. I'd get to work on that agent thing though....seems to be more important than technique or actual IQ :)
 
Mako2011 said:
I think the only real difference between yours and the "Father of Color" is.....I might actually be tempted to hang yours on a wall in my home for all to see. I'd get to work on that agent thing though....seems to be more important than technique or actual IQ :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words! And, yeah, it's not what you know, or what you can do, but who you know, right? ;)
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
I think there are plenty of us (here and elsewhere) who are fairly convinced that the art in most contemporary art is marketing.
Click to expand...
Well said...I'm always amazed at the ability of marketing to cause people to drool over these.

Click to expand...
Yikes! That's famous?! Well, here's mine:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/8000, ISO 100


Mako2011 said:
Click to expand...
I think I need to fire my agent. ;)

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/1600, ISO 100

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A more interesting project would be finding dumb, lazy types, who refuse to learn how to use their equipment, criticizing photographers like Ansel Adams for taking the time to do it right.

Hey, he got it sharp. How in the h*ck did he do that?

Look up group F/64.
carlgt1 said:
I was thinking an interesting project could be anal-retentive "pixel peeper" types critiquing famous pics for bad sharpness, fuzzy corners etc. Has anybody seen this done anywhere (book or web)?
Click to expand...
You do understand the reason they weren't sharp, or had fuzzy corners was because of the technology of the times? Kind of like thinking music should have ticks, pops, crackles, and noise, and knocking anyone who tries to get rid of them?

The first blues recordings from the 1920's are priceless. That doesn't mean you make your recordings have the same technological shortcomings.
 
You do realize that link is pure sarcasm, right? And was probably written by someone just like you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top