Most viewed photo ever (Windows XP default background), was shot on film

[frobozz]

Interesting story!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVXY8OEZAEQ

Duncan

 

[mweintraub]

Windows XP's "Bliss" background was taken on a Mamiya RZ67

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/photograp...of-the-windows-xp-deskt-1561984824/+ericlimer

 

[Trail Images]

How neat. Wonderful follow up story to the XP photo.

 

[mweintraub]

Yeah, now I can say... "Remember that XP background? Yeah, a camera like this took it."

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Probably one of the most viewed pictures ever, as well as the most repeatedly view pictures if you didn't change the default background.

 

[mwdake]

I always thought they borrowed the Teletubbies set for that picture.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Great story, great shot, great camera!

Jeff

 

[MattKing]

This is a popular video: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

"No retouching. No computer generated anything. Just one amazing photo..."

Ahhhhh...



Ken

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I always thought they borrowed the Teletubbies set for that picture.

Ha!

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Very interesting.

-J

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Merged.

 

[Bill Burk]

I was so impressed when Brian Eno had the music for Windows 95 Startup, that I made a wave file from Another Green World and set it as my startup sound just to be different.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

I was so impressed when Brian Eno had the music for Windows 95 Startup, that I made a wave file from Another Green World and set it as my startup sound just to be different.

When I had XP on my Dell (now running 7, of course), I set it up to use The Microsoft Sound from Win95. Alas, can't change the startup sound in Vista or 7 to something different.

-J

 

[Alan Klein]

I was addicted to the Windows 95 startup sound. It was like a spiritual high every time I heard it. Very comforting.

I wonder what RZ67 lens they used for the XP picture?

 

[StoneNYC]

But was it Velvia, Velvia50 or Velvia100?? Hahaha I assume it has to have been either original Velvia or Velvia50? Was Velvia100 around then?

ALSO
He did say he took about 4 frames... BUT when describing how Windows bought the photograph it sounded like they only purchased one of them, so does he secretly hold onto the other three frames??

 

[Trail Images]

But was it Velvia, Velvia50 or Velvia100?? Hahaha I assume it has to have been either original Velvia or Velvia50? Was Velvia100 around then?

ALSO
He did say he took about 4 frames... BUT when describing how Windows bought the photograph it sounded like they only purchased one of them, so does he secretly hold onto the other three frames??

I'll bet on Velvia 50, the early stuff. I'm thinking out of the 4 frames, as he stated the weather was fleeting, maybe the clouds covered the FG light a bit in other frames taken. Regardless, it sure was an excellent take and an interesting story in the end.......

 

[cliveh]

I'm surprised they didn't sell this space for advertising.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'll bet on Velvia 50, the early stuff. I'm thinking out of the 4 frames, as he stated the weather was fleeting, maybe the clouds covered the FG light a bit in other frames taken. Regardless, it sure was an excellent take and an interesting story in the end.......

Yes but original Velvia or Velvia50?

Good stuff. And if he has the other 4 frames he probably wasn't going to admit it on the interview and risk being sued or something.

He probably also made a dupe

 

[ic-racer]

"No retouching. No computer generated anything. Just one amazing photo..."

Ahhhhh...



Ken

The image that is said to be most viewed is computer generated. It has been digitized by a computer then reconstructed with colored lights by a computer.

Looking at that any thinking you are seeing an analog photograph is like viewing a bottle of wine on your computer and believing you have tasted it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The image that is said to be most viewed is computer generated. It has been digitized by a computer then reconstructed with colored lights by a computer.

Looking at that any thinking you are seeing an analog photograph is like viewing a bottle of wine on your computer and believing you have tasted it.

It's not that the wallpaper image is analog and unretouched. Neither are the APUG gallery images. It's that the photograph was originally made with no computer generated anything. And that's quite refreshing to me.

Many today are so lost in the virtual worlds that their moronic computerized gadgets create, then imprison them in, that they can't fathom the concept that for the last five million years (minus a couple of decades) humans made and did everything with no computer generated anything. And that cleverness didn't only begin in 1981. Nor did photography.

In fact, over those millenia they actually ate, slept, moved, spoke, read, wrote, debated, philosophized, fought, socialized, procreated, lived, and died without having to continuously consult a stupid gadget to tell them how. Or when. Or where. Or why.

So a photographic image that was created with no computer generated anything? Created only by someone actually using their own brain? Without a gadget to tell them what to do or how to do it? That was then used to daily greet computer users for over a decade? Users for whom that irony was totally lost? Because their gadgets didn't tell them it was ironic?

Ahhhhh...



Ken

[Edit: Yesterday I was the only one at the office. Took some time out from the Heartbleed mess for lunch. Walked across the street to a Subway. Got in line. Idly counted 15 people in front of me. Each and every one was head-down nose-plastered to the tiny screen of a gadget.

The counter girl asked of one, "What would you like on your sandwich?" No response. "Sir?" No response. Another in front of me was asked, "What can I get for you today?" No eye contact, but this time a mumbled response. "Just a minute..."

By this time there were probably another 5 people waiting behind me. I was THIS CLOSE to just reaching out, jerking the damned thing out of his hands, then tossing it in the trash for him to have to go retrieve undamaged, just to make my point. But I didn't. But I sure as hell wanted to.

So sorry, you caught me at a bad stupid digital gadget moment...]

 

[StoneNYC]

It's not that the wallpaper image is analog and unretouched. Neither are the APUG gallery images. It's that the photograph was originally made with no computer generated anything. And that's quite refreshing to me.

Many today are so lost in the virtual worlds that their moronic computerized gadgets create, then imprison them in, that they can't fathom the concept that for the last five million years (minus a couple of decades) humans made and did everything with no computer generated anything. And that cleverness didn't only begin in 1981. Nor did photography.

In fact, over those millenia they actually ate, slept, moved, spoke, read, wrote, debated, philosophized, fought, socialized, procreated, lived, and died without having to continuously consult a stupid gadget to tell them how. Or when. Or where. Or why.

So a photographic image that was created with no computer generated anything? Created only by someone actually using their own brain? Without a gadget to tell them what to do or how to do it? That was then used to daily greet computer users for over a decade? Users for whom that irony was totally lost? Because their gadgets didn't tell them it was ironic?

Ahhhhh...



Ken

[Edit: Yesterday I was the only one at the office. Took some time out from the Heartbleed mess for lunch. Walked across the street to a Subway. Got in line. Idly counted 15 people in front of me. Each and every one was head-down nose-plastered to the tiny screen of a gadget.

The counter girl asked of one, "What would you like on your sandwich?" No response. "Sir?" No response. Another in front of me was asked, "What can I get for you today?" No eye contact, but this time a mumbled response. "Just a minute..."

By this time there were probably another 5 people waiting behind me. I was THIS CLOSE to just reaching out, jerking the damned thing out of his hands, then tossing it in the trash for him to have to go retrieve undamaged, just to make my point. But I didn't. But I sure as hell wanted to.

So sorry, you caught me at a bad stupid digital gadget moment...]

I would have just spoken up and put in your order instead "since he's not interested in eating I'll have X"

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Great story, for an excellent story teller! I loved it!

 

[nateo200]

It's not that the wallpaper image is analog and unretouched. Neither are the APUG gallery images. It's that the photograph was originally made with no computer generated anything. And that's quite refreshing to me.

Many today are so lost in the virtual worlds that their moronic computerized gadgets create, then imprison them in, that they can't fathom the concept that for the last five million years (minus a couple of decades) humans made and did everything with no computer generated anything. And that cleverness didn't only begin in 1981. Nor did photography.

In fact, over those millenia they actually ate, slept, moved, spoke, read, wrote, debated, philosophized, fought, socialized, procreated, lived, and died without having to continuously consult a stupid gadget to tell them how. Or when. Or where. Or why.

So a photographic image that was created with no computer generated anything? Created only by someone actually using their own brain? Without a gadget to tell them what to do or how to do it? That was then used to daily greet computer users for over a decade? Users for whom that irony was totally lost? Because their gadgets didn't tell them it was ironic?

Ahhhhh...



Ken

[Edit: Yesterday I was the only one at the office. Took some time out from the Heartbleed mess for lunch. Walked across the street to a Subway. Got in line. Idly counted 15 people in front of me. Each and every one was head-down nose-plastered to the tiny screen of a gadget.

The counter girl asked of one, "What would you like on your sandwich?" No response. "Sir?" No response. Another in front of me was asked, "What can I get for you today?" No eye contact, but this time a mumbled response. "Just a minute..."

By this time there were probably another 5 people waiting behind me. I was THIS CLOSE to just reaching out, jerking the damned thing out of his hands, then tossing it in the trash for him to have to go retrieve undamaged, just to make my point. But I didn't. But I sure as hell wanted to.

So sorry, you caught me at a bad stupid digital gadget moment...]

The kids allot younger than me seriously didn't know how good photos were taken before digital cameras....the question of how scared me and I simply pointed to the wall with various Ansel Adams photos on my wall when I bring my film cameras people are stupid and say "Ha they still make film?" "Why aren't you using a digital camera..." or my personal favorite "Why would you take a picture on something thats worse quality?" last one makes me want beat the person with my Fuji GW690 and strangle them with tightly wound release cables and 120 paper backing but I have self control and I don't. But yeah I would have cut that guy, I've done it before, what if some crazy guy runs into a subway with a gun? Half the people probably end up dead/injured because they didn't pay attention...if everyone paid attention to their surroundings they'd be better off...makes you think...

 

[StoneNYC]

You scare me... Lol