Thread 4436563

Is this photo famous and considered great because of the subject, the composition, or the camera?

If it's because of the subject, does the composition or camera matter?

If it's the composition, what makes it such a great composition?

If it's the camera, can you name it and why the camera used for this photo was uniquely capable of taking this photo? Can you name the film used and the settings used to take the photo?

I wonder if maybe there was some kind of historical significance?

>>4436563 (OP)
It's the camera used and how many friends the photographer had

>>4436564
So the subject is what actually matters when it comes to great photos, and everything else is a distant second?

>>4436565
Can you name the camera used? And the friends?

>>4436568
a good camera, and many friends, he probably owns a dog too

>>4436566
It's reductive to say "subject is all that matters" as if composition, lighting, and photographic technique in general aren't all supposed to support the subject matter. You can see what's happening in the photo, but you can also "feel" what's happening because of your ability to see the faces in the bg, the scope of the smoke, the gas can indicating how it happened, and the serene and strong face of the monk who's on fire. A poor photo (in terms of technique) wouldn't capture the setting as well. So yes, it's ALL about the subject, including why and how you deploy photography techniques. They aren't a rubric but rather a toolkit.

clearly this guy's pictures didn't become nearly as famous so...

>>4436566
>>4436563 (OP)
Man, you guys have such shitty weak bait these days, like why even bother at this point with such a poor showing

this one goes kinda hard

>>4436563 (OP)
I'm high so I'm taking the bait
The first people who have used a camera came up with rules, themselves based on rules from older "arts" like painting or sculpting, rules to make creations pleasing to the eye
So if you go by that you could say the photo in the OP is good because there is a triangle pattern between the subject, the canister and the onlooker
or because the subject is placed in the frame as to be the first thing caught by the eye etc
The camera matters because it's important to be able to catch such a moment, so it has to be able to respond as wished when wished
But it's not only these things that can make a photo great, maybe the more you try and find out about it the more interesting and complex it becomes
In all I think the camera, film and settings are important for the user to get the exact image he sees and feels and replicate them on a physical (or not on digital) matter
But the most important to make a photo like in the OP you need a mix of subject and composition

Thank you for listening to my tedtalk

>>4436563 (OP)
a great photo makes you forget a photographer with a camera took it, it makes you feel like you're seeing something with your own eyes

The greatest photographers of the next generation are using iPhones and don't fancy themselves as photographers

>>4436621
they also arent great

The greatest photographers of the next generation are LLMs
@grok, verify this

>>4436563 (OP)
This image would definitely be improved if it was shot on a modern mirrorless system.

Zoomers are such tasteless and greedy beasts. Very similar to boomers in almost every way.

define 'great photo'

>>4436563 (OP)
Right place, right time. It's the only real value in something that is basically effortless to create and so cheap to produce and reproduce it's almost free.

>>4436756
Rossi ain't got nothing on this guy.
He totally ate shit the moment after. Just tell me it was into a grassy ditch and not the underside of a pickup

>>4436781
He was fine. Went between our bikes and was granted the title of ditch inspector. The R3 was a write off tho.