If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "It's a FAKE...wait, what"?   (slate.com) divider line 40
    More: Amusing, computer wallpaper, Windows XP  
•       •       •

9619 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Apr 2014 at 8:23 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-04-14 08:08:51 PM
Some article from long ago, perhaps not on this site, let me know it was a real photograph.  I'm not trying to cheapen the link or claim that I'm some extra-intelligent dude with the skinny on backgrounds.

But!  When I read that it was a real photo, whenever that first was, I didn't have any trouble believing it.  While I have never seen Napa Valley, I have seen some impressive, beautiful land similar to what is in the photo in the Irish and English countryside.  I took some pictures with a disposable Kodak camera, and they came out very close to the scene in the background.  I took the photos about 10 years prior - when I first saw the background, I thought that it was somewhere in the British Isles.

A handful of the other background photos that came with XP, and probably some of the other OS, are also real places and real pictures of them.  Do some searching, you'll probably be able to find a page about it.
 
2014-04-14 08:32:28 PM
I never thought about whether it was real or not. I always changed my default wallpaper anyway. I skimmed the article, and it doesn't surprise me that it was shot on real film in a larger format than 35mm.
 
2014-04-14 08:35:59 PM
It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.
 
2014-04-14 08:37:26 PM
I too never thought it was a fake. Maybe a few levels altered to bring out the texture, but I had no inkling it was a computer-generated image.

However I thought it was from eastern Washington where the land rolls like that on the palouse. Not surprised that it is Napa, though.
 
2014-04-14 08:40:56 PM
A more recent photo
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-14 08:42:11 PM
Now I'd really like to see the full resolution original.
 
2014-04-14 08:45:30 PM

RobertBruce: Now I'd really like to see the full resolution original.



news.bme.com
 
2014-04-14 08:46:20 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I too never thought it was a fake. Maybe a few levels altered to bring out the texture, but I had no inkling it was a computer-generated image.


If he used a 120 (or bigger) back and what would almost certainly have been Fuji Velvia 50 slide film, he wouldn't have had to have altered it. Velvia makes these insanely oversaturated photos all by itself.
 
2014-04-14 08:46:39 PM
If by "real" you mean "using film that oversaturates the colors" then yes, it's real.
 
2014-04-14 08:48:43 PM

RobertBruce: Now I'd really like to see the full resolution original.


There is no full resolution original. The original is a slide. The XP Bliss background is probably a scan using the best technology available at the time.
 
2014-04-14 08:52:48 PM

Mad_Radhu: RobertBruce: Now I'd really like to see the full resolution original.


I am getting tired of that meme, finally. But that was good. First time it's made me laugh in a while.
 
2014-04-14 08:54:56 PM

Mad_Radhu: RobertBruce: Now I'd really like to see the full resolution original.


[news.bme.com image 400x500]


Oooh, so close. That play would've been classic if it stayed true to form.  It lacks context now.

False start, 5 yard penalty. Second down!
 
2014-04-14 09:10:32 PM

Mad_Radhu: RobertBruce: Now I'd really like to see the full resolution original.


That meme always gets a laugh out of me but this was the best use of it I've seen in awhile.
 
2014-04-14 09:15:13 PM
Microsoft made a video about the photographer who took the iconic picture.

Why does anyone care?

I dare say I've taken a few awesome photos in my lifetime.  The only differences between me and a "professional photographer" are that their equipment is more expensive than mine and they take a lot more photographs.  Okay, and professional photographers probably get paid, but I think the best photos I've taken are just as good as those taken by professional photographers and my cheapo camera (not my phone) comes close enough to the quality of a professional rig that it doesn't matter.

The only thing I know about photography is you have to take a lot of shiatty photos to get a few good ones.  Thank gawd for digital cameras.  Film expenses were killing me in the '90s.

My camera cost more than my cell phone, but I still get lens envy when I see people with nicer cameras.
 
2014-04-14 09:21:45 PM

gfid: Why does anyone care?


Well, it was sort of interesting to find out where it came from, but I would have liked to hear if Microsoft actually commissioned him to take the picture or if they found it in his portfolio and offered him a ton of money for it.
 
2014-04-14 09:32:14 PM

433: Some article from long ago, perhaps not on this site, let me know it was a real photograph.  I'm not trying to cheapen the link or claim that I'm some extra-intelligent dude with the skinny on backgrounds.

But!  When I read that it was a real photo, whenever that first was, I didn't have any trouble believing it.  While I have never seen Napa Valley, I have seen some impressive, beautiful land similar to what is in the photo in the Irish and English countryside.  I took some pictures with a disposable Kodak camera, and they came out very close to the scene in the background.  I took the photos about 10 years prior - when I first saw the background, I thought that it was somewhere in the British Isles.

A handful of the other background photos that came with XP, and probably some of the other OS, are also real places and real pictures of them.  Do some searching, you'll probably be able to find a page about it.

I remember that also
 
2014-04-14 09:42:38 PM

RoomFullOfMonkeys: If by "real" you mean "using film that oversaturates the colors" then yes, it's real.


Here 'real' is defined to simply be 'not computer generated or specifically adulterated'.

They're not accounting for any of the photo setup or pre-editing you can do by choosing camera, lens, film, exposure, and any of the hundred other technical aspects I wouldn't know enough to account for.  It's 'real' because it was taken by a camera, in some fashion, not just slapped together in photoshop.
 
2014-04-14 09:49:24 PM

Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.


IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.
 
2014-04-14 09:53:59 PM
That background always reminded me of the Astroturf home world of the Teletubbies.
 
2014-04-14 10:12:09 PM
Ignorance of Bliss.

/.bmp
 
2014-04-14 10:19:19 PM

InterruptingQuirk: There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.


Group f/64
 
2014-04-14 10:20:24 PM
Yeah, right. Next you'll tell me mountains exist.
 
2014-04-14 10:40:31 PM
Since I live up one of those garden-like valleys east of Napa, and this is the time of the year when the grass is vibrant green and the sky bright blue with lots of little fluffy clouds, I'm getting kicks, etc.

/I wish it lasted longer than 2 months a year!
 
2014-04-14 11:17:46 PM
Some of the hills in western NY looked like that until they covered them with monstrous War of the Worlds  windmills.
 
2014-04-14 11:33:14 PM

emonk: Some of the hills in western NY looked like that until they covered them with monstrous War of the Worlds  windmills.


Ya, those utter shiatbags, trying to create renewable energy and destroying your view.  Let's just turn the coal fired plants up to 3x and make sure no one ruins someones view with a nasty windmill.  Oh and we can't put solar panels up anywhere because they are 'an eye sore'.  And...well, you get the point.
 
2014-04-14 11:40:59 PM

emonk: Some of the hills in western NY looked like that until they covered them with monstrous War of the Worlds  windmills.


New york used to be more oversaturated than frickin' munchkinland?

I question the veracity of your statement, sir.
 
2014-04-15 12:07:09 AM
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-04-15 12:10:07 AM
img.fark.net

\not mine, but I saved it when I saw it
 
2014-04-15 12:28:06 AM
o_O

Who has looked at that and thought, "Fake!"? And why?

Weird.

/really, who puts that much thought into their stock backgrounds?
 
2014-04-15 12:57:36 AM
I can't say I ever thought about it, but if someone asked me whether it was real or not from memory, I'd have said probably fake.  If someone asked me to examine it closely and tell if if it was real or fake, I'd have said real.

Thing is, the first thing I do when i log onto a new computer is change to a solid background, even if it's a kiosk or hot seat that I'll be using for all of five minutes.  So I haven't seen it that much.
 
2014-04-15 01:00:37 AM
I thought those lumps on the right-hand side looked almost like VW Beetles. I guess they are more likely hay bales, but anything's possible at 1024x768.
 
2014-04-15 01:29:32 AM

InterruptingQuirk: Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.

IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.


Depth of field is a result of apature [size of the opening of the shutter]. Most cameras go to f22. Larger medium format and large format usually had better lens as well and some went to f64. That gives a depth of field that is very deep.

All those photos we see with the blurred background tend to be closer to f1.2 - f 2.8...shallow depth of field.

He said he used a 67 which has a negative or transparency [slide] size of 6cm X 7cm. What that means in today's digital world, it has about 4X the sensor to collect light. Something like 4MP to 16MP.

I shot with a Pentax 6X7 for nearly 20 years. Its ability to handle large work [like billboards] is much better than 35...even when using Kodachrome 25.
 
2014-04-15 01:33:02 AM

gfid: Microsoft made a video about the photographer who took the iconic picture.

Why does anyone care?

I dare say I've taken a few awesome photos in my lifetime.   The only differences between me and a "professional photographer" are that their equipment is more expensive than mine and they take a lot more photographs.  Okay, and professional photographers probably get paid, but I think the best photos I've taken are just as good as those taken by professional photographers and my cheapo camera (not my phone) comes close enough to the quality of a professional rig that it doesn't matter.

The only thing I know about photography is you have to take a lot of shiatty photos to get a few good ones.  Thank gawd for digital cameras.  Film expenses were killing me in the '90s.

My camera cost more than my cell phone, but I still get lens envy when I see people with nicer cameras.


Is the cook's food better because his stove is more expensive?
Is the driver better because he has a more expensive car?

You are right, however about taking a lot more photographs...that is one of the keys...it helps give you an eye...you learn what works and what does not.
 
2014-04-15 01:38:27 AM

Ray Vaughn: InterruptingQuirk: Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.

IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.

Depth of field is a result of apature [size of the opening of the shutter]. Most cameras go to f22. Larger medium format and large format usually had better lens as well and some went to f64. That gives a depth of field that is very deep.

All those photos we see with the blurred background tend to be closer to f1.2 - f 2.8...shallow depth of field.

He said he used a 67 which has a negative or transparency [slide] size of 6cm X 7cm. What that means in today's digital world, it has about 4X the sensor to collect light. Something like 4MP to 16MP.

I shot with a Pentax 6X7 for nearly 20 years. Its ability to handle large work [like billboards] is much better than 35...even when using Kodachrome 25.


Megapixel count has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size.
 
2014-04-15 02:06:37 AM

Rezurok: Ray Vaughn: InterruptingQuirk: Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.

IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.

Depth of field is a result of apature [size of the opening of the shutter]. Most cameras go to f22. Larger medium format and large format usually had better lens as well and some went to f64. That gives a depth of field that is very deep.

All those photos we see with the blurred background tend to be closer to f1.2 - f 2.8...shallow depth of field.

He said he used a 67 which has a negative or transparency [slide] size of 6cm X 7cm. What that means in today's digital world, it has about 4X the sensor to collect light. Something like 4MP to 16MP.

I shot with a Pentax 6X7 for nearly 20 years. Its ability to handle large work [like billboards] is much better than 35...even when using Kodachrome 25.

Megapixel count has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size.


So, you are telling me that the sensor size in my medium format H4D has nothing to do with the resulting 40MP resolution that differs from the much smaller sensor on my E3 which generates 12MP?

Scroll down to the bottom and peek at the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor
 
2014-04-15 05:50:50 AM

Ray Vaughn: Rezurok: Ray Vaughn: InterruptingQuirk: Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.

IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.

Depth of field is a result of apature [size of the opening of the shutter]. Most cameras go to f22. Larger medium format and large format usually had better lens as well and some went to f64. That gives a depth of field that is very deep.

All those photos we see with the blurred background tend to be closer to f1.2 - f 2.8...shallow depth of field.

He said he used a 67 which has a negative or transparency [slide] size of 6cm X 7cm. What that means in today's digital world, it has about 4X the sensor to collect light. Something like 4MP to 16MP.

I shot with a Pentax 6X7 for nearly 20 years. Its ability to handle large work [like billboards] is much better than 35...even when using Kodachrome 25.

Megapixel count has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size.

So, you are telling me that the sensor size in my medium format H4D has nothing to do with the resulting 40MP resolution that differs from the much smaller sensor on my E3 which generates 12MP?

Scroll down to the bottom and peek at the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor


Yes, that's what I'm saying. From a practical perspective, yes, higher pixel count makes sense with a larger sensor. Back over in reality, the marketing team insists on putting 30 megapixels on a sensor the size of a pea.
 
2014-04-15 06:19:05 AM
Is it 2001 again?
 
2014-04-15 08:43:31 AM
RoomFullOfMonkeys


Don't know much about photography, do you?

/Kodachrome FTW
 
2014-04-15 11:46:38 AM

Rezurok: Ray Vaughn: Rezurok: Ray Vaughn: InterruptingQuirk: Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.

IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.

Depth of field is a result of apature [size of the opening of the shutter]. Most cameras go to f22. Larger medium format and large format usually had better lens as well and some went to f64. That gives a depth of field that is very deep.

All those photos we see with the blurred background tend to be closer to f1.2 - f 2.8...shallow depth of field.

He said he used a 67 which has a negative or transparency [slide] size of 6cm X 7cm. What that means in today's digital world, it has about 4X the sensor to collect light. Something like 4MP to 16MP.

I shot with a Pentax 6X7 for nearly 20 years. Its ability to handle large work [like billboards] is much better than 35...even when using Kodachrome 25.

Megapixel count has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size.

So, you are telling me that the sensor size in my medium format H4D has nothing to do with the resulting 40MP resolution that differs from the much smaller sensor on my E3 which generates 12MP?

Scroll down to the bottom and peek at the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor

Yes, that's what I'm saying. From a practical perspective, yes, higher pixel count makes sense with a larger s

Rezurok: Ray Vaughn: Rezurok: Ray Vaughn: InterruptingQuirk: Mikey1969: It has too much of a "perfect" look, while at the same time looking too deserted... I think that combines to make it look like it's too good to exist. The most interesting thing is that it was shot on a medium format camera, since 35mm has pretty good resolution. This picture is definitely perfect for some of the resolutions that weren't even a possibility when the pic first came out.

It's a nice enough picture that if I don't get around to changing it, I'm not too bothered.

IIRC, medium format provides for more depth of field without losing sharpness due to refraction that results on smaller apertures on full frame cameras. There was a club of famous old photogs that called themselves the f/64s I think, not that they always shot at it, but they could.

Depth of field is a result of apature [size of the opening of the shutter]. Most cameras go to f22. Larger medium format and large format usually had better lens as well and some went to f64. That gives a depth of field that is very deep.

All those photos we see with the blurred background tend to be closer to f1.2 - f 2.8...shallow depth of field.

He said he used a 67 which has a negative or transparency [slide] size of 6cm X 7cm. What that means in today's digital world, it has about 4X the sensor to collect light. Something like 4MP to 16MP.

I shot with a Pentax 6X7 for nearly 20 years. Its ability to handle large work [like billboards] is much better than 35...even when using Kodachrome 25.

Megapixel count has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size.

So, you are telling me that the sensor size in my medium format H4D has nothing to do with the resulting 40MP resolution that differs from the much smaller sensor on my E3 which generates 12MP?

Scroll down to the bottom and peek at the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor

Yes, that's what I'm saying. From a practical perspective, yes, higher pixel count makes sense with a larger s ...


I won't argue that the hype that many marketing depts generate to have a bigger number is one of the fools games in photography...but I have been dealing with this for about 20 years [when state of the art was .5mp and as sensors [ccd or cmos] get bigger, we get bigger MP count...We also can get bigger MP count by, as you say, stuffing more sensors on the same size plate - or just as well rewrite the software to change the gathering.

But, as you say...from a practical perspective [and historic as well] bigger sensor means bigger MP which means better resolution.

Even with the 'blad, I don't get the same quality I get with my Pentax 6X7 and a really good transparency scanner [which makes NO sense], but the 6X7 still does its job. But is getting damned close.
 
2014-04-15 01:09:31 PM
That image is ABSOLUTELY photoshopped.  Here's the original -- the clouds match exactly.

img.fark.net7
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report