Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 19 Feb 2015 (Thursday) 11:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15 of the rarest photographs in history

 
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Feb 24, 2015 04:35 |  #16

OhLook wrote in post #17439654 (external link)
My gosh, there are negatives that were never printed. You can't get rarer than that.

Maybe negatives not yet developped ? ;-)a

Titi


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,066 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3426
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Feb 24, 2015 09:44 |  #17

titi_67207 wrote in post #17447018 (external link)
Maybe negatives not yet developped ? ;-)a

Titi

But they wouldn't be any rarer. In both cases, the negative would be the only image, with no copies. Developing does not create a copy of the image, it merely processes the single image.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike-DT6
Goldmember
Avatar
3,955 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: The Jurassic Coast, Dorset, England.
     
Feb 24, 2015 13:23 |  #18

A photograph can be very rare despite there being more than one copy.

For example:

https://lifelivedlavis​hly.files.wordpress.co​m/2013/06/another-rare.jpg (external link)


Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
trangelo
Member
76 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2015
Location: Chicago
     
Feb 24, 2015 18:43 |  #19

neat




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
Post edited over 4 years ago by Nathan.
     
Feb 24, 2015 19:04 |  #20

Incorrect, folks. The word "rare" implies that there is at least one of that thing or such that the quality exists. For example, synonyms such as "infrequent," "scared," or "sparse" do not mean nonexistent. Another synonym "unique" means "one of a kind." "Unusual," "uncommon," "atypical" mean that there are not large numbers, but supposes that there are at least some and certainly not none. If something is "rare" because it is "peerless" or "matchless" in awe, beauty or magnificence, it is "rare" because it exists singularly- not because it does not exist at all.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,066 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3426
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Tom Reichner. (6 edits in all)
     
Feb 24, 2015 19:14 |  #21

Nathan wrote in post #17448148 (external link)
Incorrect, folks. The word "rare" implies that there is at least one of that thing or such that the quality exists.

Who was incorrect? To the best of my knowledge, no one in this thread suggested that the rarest photos are ones that do not exist (except OhLook, but she was merely lamenting that she couldn't tangebilize* those images in her mind's eye).

When we said things like, "a negative that has not been developed", or "a negative that has not been printed", we are talking about an image that does exist, but that has not been copied. One image - the original - and no copies of that image. So, it does exist, yet not in any quantity greater than one. That is as rare as rare can get. Any less and it doesn't exist, and therefore is not rare, yet any more and it would not be as rare as those images which exist in multiplicity.

I'd still like to know who you think was incorrect. You must have thought this of at least two of us, as you said, "Incorrect, folks". The pluralization of "folks" indicates that you believe that at least two of us were wrong. Who were they? What did they type that you think is wrong?

*Yes, I know it isn't a word; I made it up because I needed/wanted a term that would express what I was thinking.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
Post edited over 4 years ago by Nathan.
     
Feb 24, 2015 19:39 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #22

You're absolutely right and I should concede. However, I don't like to admit I'm wrong so I'm providing some after-the-fact justification for my premature assumptification (I want to make up a word, too - par for par) . I admit that I am very lucky because there were indeed two "folks" who were talking about photos that did not exist.

davebreal wrote in post #17440431 (external link)
The rarest photograph would be me w/ 6 pack abs. Come to think of it, that doesn't exist.

OhLook wrote in post #17440800 (external link)
Then there are the photos that I wish I'd taken. The bird flew away too soon, or I was on private property without permission to shoot, or I didn't want to risk offending human subjects. These photos don't even exist in digital form. They're really rare! And they're all really good.

By they way... I thought OhLook was a guy.

 :p


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,109 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5487
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 24, 2015 19:55 |  #23

Nathan wrote in post #17448223 (external link)
You're absolutely right and I should concede. However, I don't like to admit I'm wrong so I'm providing some after-the-fact justification for my premature assumptification (I want to make up a word, too - par for par) . I admit that I am very lucky because there were indeed two "folks" who were talking about photos that did not exist.
davebreal wrote in post #17440431 (external link)
The rarest photograph would be me w/ 6 pack abs. Come to think of it, that doesn't exist.
OhLook wrote in post #17440800 (external link)
Then there are the photos that I wish I'd taken. The bird flew away too soon, or I was on private property without permission to shoot, or I didn't want to risk offending human subjects. These photos don't even exist in digital form. They're really rare! And they're all really good.

I don't like to admit I'm wrong, either. In bringing up photos that were never taken, I was jokingly treating zero as an extreme instance of small numbers or treating mental images as a parallel version of publicly visible images, take your pick.

By they way... I thought OhLook was a guy.

Because male is the default sex, my sig makes my nondefaultitudinous status explicit. It doesn't always work. What more should I do? Use boldface there?


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
Post edited over 4 years ago by Nathan. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 24, 2015 20:34 |  #24

Remember that time when I also failed to notice your signature on a geographic matter? It's a rare instance that I am not clueless.

OhLook wrote in post #17448252 (external link)
Because male is the default sex, my sig makes my nondefaultitudinous [oh, i like what you did there... you win, I concede] status explicit. It doesn't always work. What more should I do? Use boldface there?


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kingdaddy
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Fort Worth
     
Feb 25, 2015 14:04 |  #25

Interesting, I have seen all of those pictures on one site.


6D | 7D | XSI | EF-S 10-22 | EF 50 1.4 | EF 24-105L | 100-400L │ EF-100mm Macro| MT-24EX │580 EXII | Black Rapid RS-5 | lots of Think Tank.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,511 posts
Gallery: 1812 photos
Likes: 7846
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 25, 2015 21:31 |  #26

Pictures of Fox Talbert of him taken by his parents...;-)a

P.


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Feb 26, 2015 16:25 |  #27

Wow. .. I got a new title due to by cluelessness.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,109 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5487
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 26, 2015 19:22 |  #28

Nathan wrote in post #17451325 (external link)
Wow. .. I got a new title due to by cluelessness.

Oh, my. How could that happen?

I had to look at your home page to read the whole thing. Then it made sense.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Feb 26, 2015 21:41 as a reply to  @ OhLook's post |  #29

I was attached by the title fairy - I thought it was you for a moment... or are you just playing coy? Yeah... it's a bit long.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,511 posts
Gallery: 1812 photos
Likes: 7846
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 26, 2015 21:54 |  #30

Nathan wrote in post #17451692 (external link)
I was attached by the title fairy - I thought it was you for a moment... or are you just playing coy? Yeah... it's a bit long.


WTF Im lost in what this has to do with famous fotogs.....

P.


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,620 views & 2 likes for this thread
15 of the rarest photographs in history
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Josh Line
347 guests, 239 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.