File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
This is awesome
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Width1101Image Height646
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
yes, on the front cover of the times today.

fucking

awesome
>> Anonymous
Daaaaaaaaaaaaamn.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177037
wow :o
The front photo on my local paper the other day was really something, i'll post it asap.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
I can has hi-res?
>> Anonymous
How is that awesome? It looks like some shitty camera phone. Unless the exif says Nikon D something or other, it fails as a photograph.
>> Anonymous
>>177052

i'd bet it's a scan from the front cover a newspaper, given the actual text content in the post.

newsprint != ultra high quality
>> Anonymous
Holy shit.

I can't figure out what the hell is going on with the clouds at all, and I love it. This is probably one of the most interesting photos of lightning I've ever seen.
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
Brought up a little in photoshop..

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:07 22:00:56Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1099Image Height645
>> Anonymous
>>177059

step the FUCK away from Photoshop
>> Anonymous
>>177054
as previous guy said
its a scan from the front of the Times newspaper.
>> BurtGummer
>>177060

why? i thought it made the image look better. The shading is darker and the colors are better... step off bitch!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i fixed it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:07 17:09:45Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1099Image Height645
>> Anonymous
>>177063
needs more flare
>> Anonymous
>>177062
you ruined a perfectly fine picture you faggot
>> Anonymous
The more I look at this the more I think it's a shoop or CGI.

Why is it called "Volcano"?
Since when do clouds ever move like that?

It seems really fucking fishy.
>> Anonymous
>>177076

those aren't clouds, at least not the black ones, that's smoke

"Lightning forms in the ash column that explodes from the volcano. The lightning is the result of friction between ash particles within the rising column. (Lightning forms in a thunderstorm in a similar way . . . by the collision and friction of ice particles.) The collisions between particles causes an electrical charge to build within the eruptive cloud . . . then the electrical charge detonates . . and a bolt of lightning is produced."
>> Anonymous
Taken during May 3, 2008 eruption of Chile’s Chaiten volcano.
A freak lightning storm is occurring at the same time.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
it's funny when you see what might be the most outstanding photo of its own particular type.

it's kind of like watching seven samurai (shinchin no samurai, sorry, butterfly) and you know you're never going to see a better samurai movie. it diminishes every other samurai movie, no matter how great they may be. same thing here.

i'll never be impressed by a lightning photo ever again, because i've seen this one.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Look what I found :D

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1 dpiVertical Resolution1 dpiImage Created2008:05:07 12:55:44Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2996Image Height2000
>> Anonymous
>>177503
well done anon!
>> Anonymous
>>177503
Editor crop (for once) was much better.
>> Anonymous
ugh
jpg artifacts galore
do better
>> Anonymous
Why the fuck is the smoke on fire?
>> Anonymous
>>177479
>it's funny when you see what might be the most outstanding photo of its own particular type.

Agreed.
It's so good that it feels like it has to be fake.
Even though it is not.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
The photo isn't awesome, the scene is awesome. Just because someone takes a picture of something good, doesn't mean the photograph is good. One could take a picture of an ordinary object in good lighting and it could be better than OP's image.
>> Anonymous
>>177527

butthurt faggot. try taking some photos that people care about instead of pictures of your ugly girlfriend and your cat.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177527
That doesn't really make sense, could you explain in more detail what you mean?
>> Anonymous
>>177527

lol

This is going to be one of those pictures you'll see in 20 years in a retrospective of good photographic journalism.
>> Anonymous
>>177527
I don't see what could be improved in this shot... It's framed nicely. Unless you want to get right up next to the big flaming cloud and use a wideangle, i dont think it could really be improved.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>177529
What I'm trying to say is that an amateur can take a photograph of the Mona Lisa - that doesn't make the photograph a masterpiece. Likewise, the photo in OP could have been taken by a total newcomer to photography or a seasoned pro - either way the picture would come out relatively the same.

tl;dr just because the photograph is of something fancy, doesn't make the photograph good.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>177535
I'm not saying it's a bad picture. It's technically correct, yes, but it's not an OMG AWESOME PIKTUR A+++ simply because it's taken, not "made".
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177537
>>177539
>simply because it's taken, not "made".

Eh? I don't have a clue what you mean..
How would you 'make' a photo like this "awesome" then?
>> Anonymous
if something is fancy, then it's fancy. You said it yourself.
:(
>> Anonymous
>>177539

You are an idiot who does not understand photojournalism. Please kill yourself for the sake of humanity.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>177544
The point of photojournalism is to take a factually-accurate and technically-correct image. Yeah, journalistically speaking, it's a well-taken picture. But the image wasn't "created" by the author. The least creative person in the world could have snapped that shot, hell even an infant with a camera could.

Is it a neat shot? Sure. Does it make the photographer awesome? Fuck no.
>> Anonymous
>>177549

Haha, oh wow.
>> Anonymous
>>177549
You don't make that girl's hair fly in front of her face, it happens. So you are not a good photographer either?

All of your subjects were "created" by their parents, so you are a shit photographer too.
>> Anonymous
>>177549
did anyone ever say this shot was taken by an amazing photographer? no. its an awesome picture taken at the right time.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>177554
You can get bitter all you want, though you're wrong to assume I even considered myself a good photographer. Yeah, Ansel Adams was a shitty photographer too, you could say, because he just took pictures of already beautiful things - but he did it in a fashion that was unique and especially creative. His work, as an example, hasn't been correctly mastered by anyone else in 40 some years.

The OP picture, on the contrary, is OF something awesome, but is not in itself awesome.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177549
For all you know the guy/girl who took this, may have an extremely impressive portfolio, you cant judge them all by 1 photo.

I smell jealousy, that whoever took this has been payed thousands for a snapshot. :D
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>177559
I'm not judging the photographer, read what I am saying:

The scene is impressive, the image itself is not BECAUSE it could have been taken by virtually anybody that was at the right place at the right time.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>177558
here, is this better?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:08 15:30:26Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1101Image Height646
>> Anonymous
>>177565
did you know you can say that about any photojournalistic picture basically? just because they didnt set up the model in such an amazing fashion such as you do, doesnt mean the photo is shit, even if they were just lucky. its still a good photo.
>> Anonymous
>>177565

You're a fucking moron. Have you ever tried to properly expose and capture lightning? Shut the fuck up. RAGEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>> Anonymous
>>177567

wow the vingetting frames this so nicely, muted colours and yellow green tone look great! great sharpness too, everything is so in focus.
>> Anonymous
ITT: DC is a jealous faggot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is how it's done.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177567
This is getting old now. quit whilst it was good.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>177570
That's not always true.

>>177574
I'm jealous of the fact I couldn't witness (and consequently) take a picture of the event, but I'm sure we could all agree almost everyone on /p/ with a decent camera could have taken that picture.
>> Anonymous
>>177577
making fun of his style never gets old. also, youre new here. you should be taking notes.
>> Anonymous
>>177579
>BAWWWW
>> Anonymous
>>177577

you of all people have no say in calling something old, get the fuck out
>> Anonymous
>>177578
>everyone on /p/ with a decent camera could have taken that picture.

anybody in the world with a camera could take that picture. photography is as easy as learning a fucking book, so stop being a fag.
>> Anonymous
All this arguing... if any of us could've taken that photo, than why haven't we?
1: We can't afford to run around trying to make a living off of photography.
2: Some of us just aren't that skilled to see what this person saw, plan it the way he/she did, and capture the perfect moment.

Quit bitching or take something as good.
>> Anonymous
>>177558
ansel adams is an instant-art bw fag!
>> Anonymous
I can see your point, Depressed Cheesecake, but it comes down to that it doesn't really matter how the photograph was gotten. Robert Capa was just taking pictures of Republican militiamen when he got that picture of the guy getting shot. They got ambushed. Capa had the luck to fire off a frame at the time the first bullet was fired. There's even pictures on the roll just before it of the soldiers posing for him.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
depressed cheesecake, you're either an idiot or a decent troll.

half of what makes a photographer so good is "being there". do you think all of the greats just have magical timing? gee, if we had all been there with ansel adams/robert frank/hcb/WHOEVER THE FUCK we all could have taken that photo!!!!

awesome face.jpg in-fuckingdeed.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>177630
DC is one of the best posters on /p/. He's wrong here, but you're even wronger.

Some great photos- the OP, the Capa one I mentioned- come by chance. But I guarantee your or I could not have spotted this picture, and even if we did spot, would not have taken the picture the exact same way as Cartier-Bresson did.

(Captioned: "SPAIN. Barcelona. Barrio Chino. 1933. The narrow street of Barcelona's roughest quarter is the home of prostitutes, petty thieves and dope peddlers. But I saw a fruit vendor sleeping against a wall and was struck by the surprisingly gentle and articulate drawing scrawled there."
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This thread is Depressed Cheesecake's coming out as a Troll.

I sage it because it is pathetic, and obvious.
DC, art isn't always about EXTREME ANGLES and STROBIST LIGHTING and lots of technical doo-jiggery.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>177634

that was my point, idiot. that's it not all chance, and if we had been there, we wouldn't have gotten that photo.

jesus, this place is making me grumpy.
>> Anonymous
>>177634DC is one of the best posters on /p/.

hahahaha

troll or cheesecake, or better yet, both
>> Tepache !4avJBSMAPo
Depressed Cheesecake is French for "Huge Faggot"
>> Anonymous
Ken Rockwell is often wrong, but I think he's right about this comment about art:

>"Why is it that photographers loaded with the most extraordinary gear who use the internet to get the exact GPS coordinates of Jack's or Ansel's photo locations and hike out there with the image in hand to ensure an exact copy (illegal by US copyright laws and common decency), that they get something that might look similar, but lacks all the impact and emotion of the original they thought they copied?

>"I'm not kidding. A bunch of these turkeys used university astronomers to predict the one time in almost two decades that the conditions would match and had 300 of the clueless converge at just the right spot. They still didn't get the clouds, snow or shadows right. This makes Ansel or any other creative artist cringe. Of course they didn't get anything like what they wanted. Art is a lot more."

If any of us were at the exact same spot at the same time as the photog in OP we would have come back with a different image.
>> Anonymous
yeah this photo kicks ass, but i'd like it more if there were like, some persons goofy head walking past in the bottom left or something. that would be funny.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>177503
thanks anon, saved


oh and ITT even though cheesecake sounds like a butthurt faggot, he's right and i fully agree with him.
the person who took this photo probably sucks at photography but just managed to witness something awesome and incredible
>> Anonymous
>>177804
I'd be willing to agree that this photo isn't proof that he/she's a great photographer, in the sense DC used, but I don't get where you're coming from with the "probably sucks at photography" angle. Now that sounds just like jealousy, plain and simple.
>> Anonymous
ITT: buthurt faggots who never have tried to take a picture of a ligthing storm
>> Anonymous
>>177812
This is a good point I didn't think of. DC, have you ever tried to photograph a lightning storm? It's damn hard. Now, sure, there are two possibilites that would square with your point:

1) The anomalous nature of this lightning storm made the presence of bolts in the cloud constant.

2) The photographer had a camera with a fast frame rate and card, with a large buffer, and just filled the card and picked one.

There's a third possibility raised by this, though: the photographer could've been pretty smart, realized only the lightning had appreciable movement in the scene, and made a relatively long exposure, thus catching many bolts in the cloud, more than there were at one moment, to add to the visual impact. The obvious presence of noise and the lack of sharpness on the trees (which could be ruffled by wind) seems to back this up.
>> Anonymous
Anyone who belittles this work should come up with something at least as awesome or shut the fuck up as they just look pathetic otherwise.

Go cry somewhere else. No one cares if you are jealous because you are not getting enough attention today.
>> Anonymous
i like how beethy says this isn't awesome but then leaps to defend a bog standard photo of a store.

BIZARRO WORLD LOGIC
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
volcan, no photoshop, this image in video too, currently the zone is area evacuated.

this photo is the same volcan approximately one hundred and fifty kilometers away O__O!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this is the volcan via photo nasa X__X

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsPhotographerHOImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:08 11:33:19Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height260
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
You don't have to be a professional photographer to take an awesome photograph of an incredible event. Sure, others could have taken this, but that doesn't make the photograph any less beautiful. Art is much deeper than technical knowledge.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
I'm not trolling, though I agree that perhaps I took an extreme stance on the subject.

What I meant to convey is that photography should be made, not taken. What I don't like about the photo, and it IS a great photo of a spectacular view, is the fact that it could have been taken accidentally, or without any technical knowledge of photography, or by an amateur. To me, that makes it less awesome of a picture.

Here's a photo I took about two years ago. It's a good scene, too, but anyone with the right view could have taken the same picture. That doesn't make me a good photographer, nor should it make it a good photograph. Get it?
>> Anonymous
>>177979
Perhaps I have a noobish and biased view, but I don't care about the photographer or the techniques used to make the photo. I only care whether I like the photo or not. Same with music and films.
>> Anonymous
>>177979

>anyone with the right view could have taken the same picture

the same aplies to every fukin picture in the world. is just as smple as push butan, isnt?
>> Anonymous
>>178004
It's definitely not that simple, but the person you're putting that argument up against is totally off base too.
Besides working in the studio most photography is all about knowing your tools well enough that the tool wont limit you, that can mean absolutely no knowledge with a modern automatic camera or tons of knowledge with an old plate camera and a popup tent wet darkroom on hand.

Most photographers that are great are so great because they know how to be in the right place at the right time consistently (Talking journalism here not art photo, which I'd say definitely applies to this picture)
The fact that the person doesn't know shit about photography doesn't take anything away from the photo.
Simply takes a lot away from the photographer and any prospects they may have in continuing their photographing in any sort of professional way.

Woo long winded.
>> Anonymous
>>177979
So I take it you don't like Ansel Adams or HCB, because they didn't "create" or "make" their shots, but just shot what they saw. In fact, by your logic all of the following categories are not art: landscape, architcture, photo-journalism, candid portraits.

Photography is the instant art form. If you break it down to the bare essence of it, photography is about being at the right place at the right time and pushing a button to capture an image. To me it doesn't matter if the image you capture occurred naturally, or if you spent ages setting up and constructing the scene yourself. Both are valid methods, and both methods are worthy of being called art.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>177979
Actually, that's damn well taken (although you could probably do a little better now)
It's taken a hell of a lot better than OP photo.
Your point still stands firmly, a lot of people are missing it though.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>177979
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
A good photo is one that is pleasing in an aesthetic sense or one that means a lot to the viewer. Who cares about the rest?
>> Anonymous
oh god...

please dont let this turn into a thread about 'taste'.

Its already gone from awesome volcano to theological fucked-up views about 'good photography'.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
     File :-(, x)
In Finland, that photo probably is public domain after 50 years of the moment it was taken.

Here's a photo from 1952, where Paavo Nurmi lights olympic fire.
It's one of its kind, there's no photo like it, but it's nothing else than just a photo. In terms of copyright. It's public domain now.

Just because no-one else didn't take photo at the same time, doesn't make it piece of art, which would have 75 year copyright protection after photographer's death.

So, I would say DC have a strong point here. As in my example, it's something rare, which no-one else hasn't captured. But, as said, photographer couldn't effect the situation, so anyone would have the same possibility to take the very same photo. (Am I clear enough?)
>> Anonymous
So is there some way the OP photo could have been "made" better? Or is it impossible based on the nature of the event?
>> Anonymous
>>177979
>>178043

That picture is utter crap compared to the original. Get over yourself. Just because you are a shit photographer doesn't mean you should cry out and demand all others must not be praised.

The OP's photo is awesome. Anyone disagreeing with it is just plain pathetic and jealous. Tall poppy syndrome at its best.
>> Anonymous
>>178134

still better than pictures of your cat. if you don't understand that then you should smash your camera before you pollute the world with any more of your shitty pictures.
>> Anonymous
I saw this in National Geographic. It was the easily best photo of the event and they obviously felt the same. I haven't seen any of /p/'s photos there of it or in National Geographic, so I guess it isn't that easy to beat. The green eyed monster and his friends are trolling hard today. Go cry more to mommy and save us this stupidity all over /p/.
>> Anonymous
ITT We argue whether a photograph can be art because it is not made like a painting but captured.

Go on, this will be very productive. Conclusive consensus will be reached and everyone will shake hands. </sarcasm>

Technical quality, subject matter quality, artistic quality and whatnot.. These are all getting mixed up here.

This actually an amusing inversion of a typical model picture thread where people disregard good-enough image quality and start commenting on models instead. Now nobody is calling the subject matter nothing less than amazing but the image quality and photography issues are getting attacked. How fancy is that.

Those who can't paint, photograph? Do i hear some of this here too? My photo-fu is better than yours because i know what i'm doing and your picture is better because you just got lucky.

And yes i'm also trolling, but just a little.
>> Anonymous
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12874827324
>> Anonymous
>>177979

This is taken from the thunder watch Flickr group.. so that faggot just stole it and posted it here to prove his point.

wow
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>178195
Link to the group please? I can't find it.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>178195
Wow, could there be a remote possibility that I have a Flickr account too?

Moron.

Look, it's pointless to argue over art. It's obviously subjective. Do I like the picture we're talking about? Yes, but I'm not giving any merit to the photographer. It's not fair, IN MY OPINION. I respect Ansel Adams as much as Gregory Crewdson, in the sense that both put a lot of creativity and their own interpretation into the photograph. The one in OP doesn't convey that to me.
>> Anonymous
>>178344Wow, could there be a remote possibility that I have a Flickr account too?

Yeah, and why didn't you post one with EXIF like you always do?

Better yet, link it to the Flickr page. Fucking thief faggot.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>178356
As soon as you show this proposed "Flickr group" that has my picture.
>> Anonymous
>>178360
I just ran a search; there's no "Thunder Watch" group on Flickr.

I think you're being trolled, DC.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>178361
Wouldn't surprise me. I've got the RAW on my server at home I'll post later, anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>178043

beethy, you are a gigantic faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>178362
>>178361
>>178360

samefag
>> Anonymous
>>178365

No, I'm

>>177629,

another opinionated young guy who mostly takes candid portraits of his female best friend.

Anonymity's a weird kick, isn't it?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
another flickrfag gets ousted lulz

http://flickr.com/photos/soloxide

oh hai vignette dog

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:02 17:50:00Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height750RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
THIS IS NOT ENOUGH VIGNETTING
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
unsharp mask

SHITS SO IN FOCUS

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:05 19:17:35Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height1098RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>178370
>ousted
>> Anonymous
>>178370
MOAR APRIL!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Shit like this is why I never post my own flickr or the flickr of people I like...
>> Anonymous
>>178421
you mean because you enjoy bad pictures taken by bad photographers? you should be ashamed, we don't want to see that shit here
>> Anonymous
>>178428

No, because nothing's ever good enough for /p/. Worst part is, people who tear apart someone's work here rarely give any constructive advice. I think it's a mixture of jealousy (someone already pointed out the "tall poppy syndrome") and people who know nothing about photography and just want to be mean and troll.

Haven't you noticed that there are only one or two threads here that ever go by where someone says something like, "Oh wow, this is a nice shot but I think _____ and _____ could've gone better. Try a smaller aperture next time, it'll really bring out _____!"
>> Anonymous
>>178449
i think that's really because the entire contemporary market of internet photos are mainly taken by young kids 16-24 who have no serious photography background or training, and they're just doing it for attention. so yeah, the pictures suck, and people who are more knowledgeable about photography (i.e, regulars on a photography board) are going to tell them that it sucks.