There will never, ever be another photo as recognizable and ubiquitous. It was the first and last thing hundreds of millions of people saw every day for a decade. It sits on millions of install CDs, hard drives and is burned into monitors on every continent on earth. Like it or not, it will outlive you. It will outlive your children.
>>4382745I am okay with that. It's a good photo
actually wait. I fixed it. It's now like you remember[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution141 dpcmVertical Resolution141 dpcmImage Created2024:11:08 00:44:09Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4382745Good>>4382750Kys, mountains must stay
>>4382745rhine II wishes it was this picture
>>4382745Mac OS X space wallpapers are up there
>>4382781Rhine ii is a meme
>>4382794no shit.
>>4382781Bliss - $100,000Rhine II - $4,300,000nophoto - priceless
Can someone apply Classic Chrome?
>>4382798based
>>4382798True because i never took a single photograph and nobody paid me to do this, therefore i do not doing for free
>There will never, ever be another photo as recognizable and ubiquitousI don't want to piss on your chips, but there's a whole generation on earth right now which has never even seen that default wallpaper...
It's nice, but it lacks cloud detail
>>4382928I waited for someone to say this... I knew it would be more rewarding than saying it myself. Of course it was Burt.
>>4382928>>4382934Media consumption moves so fast now that no single image will ever have the same universal exposure. Do you remember what was happening a year ago the same way you remember this random landscape from 23 years ago?
>>4382745aching and devastating. it makes me feel dwarfed by a vast and beautiful world. I want to collapse to my knees in that grass and cry towards the distant range.>>4382750horrifying and evil. placeless. impostor. shape shifter. every neuron is screaming that I am in danger and I must run.
>>4382957>Media consumption moves so fast now that no single image will ever have the same universal exposure.Coputing was so niche globally that the new short lifespan memes get more exposure in a fraction of the time
>>4382745
>>4383135This made me laugh but I honestly prefer my edited one. The creek/ditch/whatever in the lower third is an eye sore and the mountains disrupt the all consuming green void. I don't actually remember those being there as a kid. This is how I remember the photo. I think the edited one is actually blissful. Perfect. Serene.I say, be not afraid.
Go to it anon. Go embrace it. Embrace bliss. The final step into that good night. A loving, cold embrace of eternal slumber, eternal dreams. Eternal Bliss.
>>4382750You just made the Bliss equivalent of this[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.38Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:11:09 15:49:57Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4383141basedjack is meant to be ugly because it's an attack. Bliss is meant to be beautiful. I have made it more beautiful
>>4382957>Media consumption moves so fast now that no single image will ever have the same universal exposure.But that universal exposure wasnt the result of its popularity. It was just an image forced in front of people. It represents a brand. If you want your most famous image to be a company logo then I would say the McDonalds golden arches are even more iconic.
All the pros immediately switched to the desert or the fishies, this is a fact.
>>4383148Theres something to be said about a demoralization campaign that tells hobbyist chefs to feel worthless because mcdonalds exists and someone, somewhere, is eating a professionally microwaved sandwich made of pink goo, corn, and canola oil. which would also make them forget what real food tastes likehttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5719422/#:~:text=The%2520data%2520presented%2520in%2520the,mouse%2520model%2520that%2520develops%2520A%CE%B2lol
>>4383180>implying
>not using the windows 95 theme with all appearance features save for displaying windows contents when moving/resizing disabledNGMI. I used it on XP X64 even. I bet you fags used drop shadows...
>>4383136Niche? XP sold like 500 million copies. Computer use and the internet were pretty "normal" by 2001.
>>4383345This, every White family had a PC during the XP days. Also he said "coputing" which made me laugh a bit because that's what his brain is doing.
>>4382928Vista came out just 17 years ago, there's not a single adult who has used computers who hasn't seen Bliss. That is an incredible amount of people and in all likelihood there won't be another single image that will be as widespread.
aam i a talented a photographr?
>>4383353this pic causes atheism
>>4383352The Bliss wallpaper was on Windows XP which came out in 2001...The year is 2024 and, yes, there is a whole-ass adult generation which hasn't seen the Bliss wallpaper. And while for your old ass it was a famous image, billions of people who DIDNT own an XP computer never actually saw that image. They recognise Tianamen Square Tank man, Neil Armstrong on the moon, or maybe Marilyn Manson holding her skirt down as the most famous photograph. Bliss was just a wallpaper. It had no real context or cultural significance to anybody. It was a non-image. Filler. There are a lot more photographs out there which were far more relevant to far more people than bliss.
>>4383357And XP was used on the vast majority of computer up until at least 2007, when Vista was released. Even after then it continued to be used on many computers.
>>4383357The point I think you fail to understand is that nobody looks at photos of Tianamen Square or Marilyn Monroe multiple times a day, every single day, for a decade. Historical value? Sure. But what does it matter? If YOU didn't own a computer? You saw it on someone else's. At work. On TV. Bliss was literally everywhere, whether people acknowledged it or not.No single picture will ever have that impact again. If XP is so old and dated, why is Bliss still the most viewed image in history?
>>4382745good, those days are gone, hated the early 2000sfelt like i was sucking off Bill Gates
>>4382745always thought i was a landfill
>>4383357>Marilyn Manson holding her skirthahaha fucking mongoloid
>>4383380Kek.
>>4383371
>>4383382>has mountains:O
>>4383371>No single picture will ever have that impact againWhat impact? The point he's making is it doesn't really have any impact. Its forgettable and lacks context. Other images, such as earthrise etc, will be viewed way more in the future than Bliss. You're forced to look at the images on banknotes and cereal boxes all the time, that doesn't make them worthy of note.
>>4383345>500 millionYeah, niche, that's not even a third of the people in 2001, now compare it to today where literally everyone has a computer on him 24/7
>>4383199checked and also based
>>4382750since childhood i always noticed those hills in the side, they never bothered me
I'm gonna be honest, as a kid I never thought this was a real photo. The green is too radioactive so I just assumed it was some digital art with a real cloud layer slapped on top.
>>4384247I also thought it was CGI, the green is Rockwellian
>>4384247>>4384249iirc it was shot on Velvia which saturates the fuck out of green and blue.
>>4382928You'd be surprised, a lot of companies and schools are really slow at upgrading shit, so they keep the old stuff for a long time. Even my company kept on Windows 8 until the very last possible moment and even now, they are desperately trying to stay on Windows 10.I've still seen XP in use in some offices even now, mostly because there's certain software that won't work beyond XP and ITfags can be really lazy about fixing shit.
>>4384284Holy SHIT, is that THE HILL?
>>4384410Everyone knows where the hill is, anon.
>>4384410Yeah, it was a sonoma vineyard during an off year.
>>4382745behold... bliss for the modern age[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Softwarehttp://wallup.netPhotographerhttp://wallup.netImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1 dpVertical Resolution1 dp
>>4388483But Anon, this photo fucking sucks.
>>4388483for me, its the 10 tent
His other work that was under consideration for the default Windows XP wallpaper but was rejected due to looking like ass.
>>4382745I live 30 mins from where this picture was taken. Beautiful area. :D
>>4382745>I didn't "create" this. I just happened to be there at the right moment and documented it.Based and phototakingnotmakingpilled
>>4388538Well, the modern age fucking sucks too so I guess it's par for the course
>>4388540Looks like a Linux distro wallpaper.
>>4382745What is the "ANti-bliss"?Show me a wallpaper that you think captures "Anxiety"
>>4382750>I fixed itYou didn't, that's my edit you nigger thiefI prefer the original tho
>>4384410Was, the hipster jews turned it into a vineyard>>4388731Haunted House screensaver from Windows 98
>>4383382>multiple opera shortcuts???
>>4383139now it needs to be extended, long enough to be a viewed in 360.
>>4382745I think bliss is unironically one of the best photos ever taken. props to the photographer for achieving such a perfect photo
>>4382745posting the highest resolution version I've found
>>4383180>desertbretty good choice anon but moonrise over rainier was superior
>>4388914The fact that wasn't a stacked comp. with a bigger moon from another shot blows my mind. OG Windows wallpapers were mint
>>4382745For some reason I can't find the edit with a Teletubby house and a Teletubby with Bill Gates face... anyone got it?
>>4388924superteles aren't only for birban[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-GH5M2Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.1Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Focal Length (35mm Equiv)600 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:10:21 12:24:52White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/1300 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeOtherLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1919Image Height2400RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHardImage QualityUnknownWhite BalanceAutoFocus ModeAutoSpot ModeUnknownImage StabilizerUnknownMacro ModeNormalShooting ModeAperture PriorityAudioNoFlash Bias0.00 EV
>>4388942Am I retarded in theorizing that, if you were to purposefully position far away from your subject to use a telephoto (say 800mm) instead of a regular lens (say 50mm), you would get basically the same amount of FoV on your subject, but becasuse the moon is the same distance away that the use of the super telephoto would magnify the moon relative to your subject?Like, the moon is practically the same distance away no matter how far from your foreground you are; a few steps wont matter, but you you're magnifying *everything* in the shot by the same factor (say 16x for the 800mm)
>>4388943Not him but basically yes. The FOV is not exactly the same though, you see less of the background but it's larger relative to the foreground subject. Example: imagine being this crudely drawn stick figure standing on the road at le mans, how small would the circled car look relative to how in looks in the actual photo?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.A136BXXS9DXI4Image-Specific Properties:Image Width720Image Height478
>>4388952He's referring to what happens in this shothttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca08j8ASdOwThe subject takes more or less the same FOV in the entire shot, but you can see what happens with the hills behind.
>>4388953What the fuck my eyes. So they're using the dolly to come in closer to David there but also going wider with the FL? Huh. I mean I guess I understood the basic concept of FLs and their effect on FoV, but it wasn't immediately obvious how different interactions with subject distances could be abused like that. That's fuckin sick, I'm gonna have to experiment the next time I'm out.
>>4388953Maybe I gave a poor example but that's what I meant. This is not a perfect example either as the subject actually shifts between attenbro and the cliff rather than staying on him. That video made me feel like I'm going to fall over btw. So nice, I guess.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2400Image Height3195Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:11:30 22:29:29Light SourceUnknown
>>4388952 That nikka about to get hit by a racing car
>>4388954dolly zooms can be pretty kino when done righthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B2djGDnDO4
>>4388957Nah this actually demonstrates it well and in a realtime manner. It's just something I never actively thought about but it makes perfect sense.The subject (Davy) is kept at the same size in the frame (magnification) by moving say, 5-20 meters or whatever, and the background (cliffs) are moved the same distance which is fuck all in comparision to how far away the camera originally was. The narrow FL achieves practically a similar amount of magnifciation on the cliffs because you're 2kms +/- 5-20m away but the subject is now several orders of magnitude futher from the camera.Not the most consice explaination from myself, but I understand what you were explaining.
Was watching a video of some guys walking through a decommissioned power plant and one of the computers in the control room was idling on XP, untouched for years probably. How much of the world's industrial/commercial backbone still runs on this humble Bliss picture? Would society collapse if all XP machines suddenly stopped working?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2024:12:04 24:58:08Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4382745holy shiet, film cant stop winning
>>4382745Why does it look fake
>>4389695Support for Embedded ended in 2016 but a lot of non-critical stuff that's not on a network is still running it just fine. Even Win2K Embedded was supported until 2014.
