Ever heard of Les Horribles Cernettes? You might not have, but they truly deserve a footnote in history. Or rather, this photograph of them does.
But before I tell you why, take a look at this picture:
What is it? The navel of the eponymous orange, taken with a '90s-era Xapshot? From mere appearances, you could be forgiven for thinking this is nothing special. Oh, but you would be wrong, nucleus-breath. This picture took five years to make.
It is the absolute smallest thing ever photographed. Professor Dave Kielpinski and a research team from Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, wanted to investigate how few atoms are required to cast a shadow—and they proved it.
So how many?
Just one.
That's right: this is a photograph of the shadow of a single atom. Just in case you needed something to blow your mind for today. Thanks to Steven Ralser for passing this along.
Photo by Charles O'Rear / Microsoft
Speaking of significant photographs, ever seen this before? Before yesterday, I honestly hadn't. I didn't recognize it. I had to ask Jeffrey Goggin, who sent it to me, what made it so special. (Some of you are chuckling.)
It was taken by American photographer Charles O'Rear, in Sonoma County, California. In most places it's titled "Bliss," but for Dutch Windows OS (or, as I type it, "Window SOS") users, it was called "Ireland," which is a fib.
The Next Web has some tasty details about it, including a surprising shot of the same scene ten years later and some clues about just how much Charles was paid for it.
Oh, and by the way, it was taken on film, and wasn't digitally manipulated.
So what about Les Horribles Cernettes? That happens to be—cue drum roll, please—the very first photograph ever published on the World Wide Web, twenty years and a few days ago.
Somehow, that seems perfect.
Abraham Riesman's great little article about it on Motherboard is a quick read, but also a "must-read" if you ask me. This history of photography, circa now. (Many readers passed along some version of this story—thanks to all of you.)
Mike
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Rob: "I attended a class taught by Mr. O'Rear at Santa Fe Workshops a year or so after he sold the image. The class was lead to believe that he, or the stock company, was paid over six figures for the image and that delivery services would not ship the image due to its cost and that he had to deliver the original image to Microsoft headquarters himself. He did tell us that the images was as he shot it. He talked about how he went to great lengths to find these kind of unique images and that most he had found could not be replicated. This does not rule out Microsoft doing something to the image once they had it."
Featured Comment by Dave Van de Mark: "Yes, I had to laugh regarding the Windows 'Bliss' photo. As a custom PC builder and repair guy, I can't imagine how often I've see that image (even today). I had guessed it was part of the Palouse in eastern Washington instead of being close to where I live!"
So what about Les Horribles Cernettes? That happens to be—cue drum roll, please—the very first photograph ever published on the Internet, a more twenty years and a few days ago.
Can I be ultra-pedantic and say that this was the first photograph on the World Wide Web, not on the Internet? The WWW came into being at CERN about 20 years ago, hence the historical significance of the photograph.
But the Internet existed long before the WWW (which runs on the Internet using the http protocol), and there were certainly photographs accessible via pre-http Internet protocols, like ftp, gopher and others long forgotten.
[Thanks John. Fixed now. —Ed.]
Posted by: John Allen | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 12:42 PM
Les Horribles Cernettes!
I did not know that. But that's a piece of history.
The initials of the group are L.H.C. as in Large Hadron Collider!.
Posted by: Andre | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 12:48 PM
Small correction: the Cernettes photo was the first photo on the WWW ("World Wide Web"), which is a part of, but not "The Internet." The Internet had been around for quite a while before the WWW, and there were countless other images on it.
Of note, and what makes this even more interesting, is that CERN did all that while it was creating the LHC, which proved the Higgs Boson that has been in the news lately.
Posted by: Sixlocal | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 01:23 PM
So... how much was paid for that Monica photo then?
Posted by: Slobodan Blagojevic | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 01:40 PM
I'm not a Windoze user, so O'Rear's photo was unfamiliar to me in that context, but as the father of a young teen, it rang a bell. A quick search confirmed that I'm not the only person who made the connection: http://www.google.com/search?q=teletubbies&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=KKQFUPmQN8Ow2wWE5rDKBQ&ved=0CDYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1452&bih=914
Posted by: Dave | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 01:50 PM
The "Bliss" photo was taken with a medium format camera on film and that is all I can find out about it. Stated to be digitally unmanipulated, but I'm guessing the film was Fuji in conjunction with a polarizing filter. If so may we call it analog manipulation?
Posted by: fred | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 02:45 PM
So now I am thinking about light's relationship to atoms: can Ctein help me out?
Posted by: Patrick Dodds | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 02:46 PM
Ugh, the windows XP photo makes me shudder. I think it might actually be the strongest reaction that I have had to any of the photos you have posted.
Proof if any was needed that it is the context in which the viewer sees the photo that is the most important thing in influencing how they perceive it, I suppose. (and probably non-photos too)
Posted by: Nico Burns | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 03:32 PM
"So... how much was paid for that Monica photo then?"
Anyone know Dirck? We could ask.
I seem to remember some discussion about this very issue back when I wrote about TIME magazine covers. But I don't think I ever knew the answer.
Whoops! Faulty memory again. Dirck himself told us he was paid $7,500 for that Monica Lewinsky cover shot. Here's the link.
Jeffrey Goggin pointed this out to me. Thanks to him.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 03:55 PM
Well, I was wrong. I was going to guess the shot of Les Horribles Cernettes was the first published use of Photoshop. Just sorta has that early-90s look, to me.
The Bliss photo had me fooled, too. For years I thought for sure that over-saturated and saccharine shot was digitally manipulated to appear that way. Velvia (or whatever) to the rescue!
Posted by: David | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 04:40 PM
Yes Mike, the Abraham Riesman's article on the first photo on the web is ok, but it mentions a couple of wrong facts. The first is when he writes "because Tim Berners-Lee was into crossdressing". See the comment of "Les Horrible Cernettes" on this: http://musiclub.web.cern.ch/MusiClub/bands/cernettes/disclaimer.html
The second is when he writes "the one that may have just discovered the Higgs boson". Might have discovered? We just did :-)
R.
Posted by: Roberto | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:06 PM
Interesting story. I never liked the image that much maybe due to its ubiquitous presence on each new PC I installed. The first thing I did was to remove this background for a plain background. That said, I can understand why this picture was chosen by Microsoft, it fitted the Luna theme (default Windows XP theme) with strong blue and green being dominants. Today it may seem a bit dated but at the time Windows, before XP, was mostly made of grey.
Posted by: Emmanuel Huybrechts | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 08:08 PM
Well, I am surprised! The first photograph ever published on the web? It can't be! The ladies are wearing too much.
Posted by: Dillan K | Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 09:24 PM
Les Horribles Cernettes! I remember following that story a couple of days ago as well as looking at their videos on YouTube. Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1L2xODZSI4
I especially like the various places within CERN where they shoot the video: the accelerator, the server room (especially the Crays!)
As for the bliss photo: so many memories! For many reasons (mostly computer related) I never understood why it was called bliss. I also remember the original color scheme for XP. Bright orange, blue, green, and white. Ugh!
Pak
Posted by: Pak-Ming Wan | Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 05:25 AM
Thank you, thank you Mike for including that the atom photo was made in Australia. It was published on another science site recently but the Queensland uni connection was not mentioned. Omitted. Forgotten.
Top science is being done here. Top medical research. Our economy is going great guns. We have no recessions or bank scandals here. We are a decent, honest, clever, humane society. Yes, we have faults, but we are powering through while the so called elite countries are stumbling and sinking. You just overlook us, look askance at us. OK, see you in the rear vision mirror.
I will also include NZ. New Zealand is also a great country, totally ignored by the elites. Well, ants bite. ANZ is a great combination. Best of the best.
I guess I'm so vocal on this because I foresee a firestorm coming. We in ANZ will be engulfed by the awful things happening in the northern hemisphere. Greed has overcome decency. Stop while you still can.
Edit as you like, Mike. I've had a beer or two.
Posted by: Peter Croft | Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 10:19 AM
What I enjoy most with this famous photo, is that it has an optical illusion that causes the shadows cast by the clouds to appear to be moving. I used to think it was animated in someway, until I realized it was just good ol' contrast effects. The illusion works best by looking at the right hand portion of the photo, the shadow will appear to be moving in your peripheral vision.
Posted by: Maxim Muir | Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 12:25 PM
Yeah, I THOUGHT the Charles O'Rear photo was shot somewhere in that area of the world. Been through there many times, and it looked real familiar.
In fact, I think I may have photographed the same scene myself years ago, but mine didn't turn out as well. No clouds and shot from a less interesting angle.
Posted by: PWL | Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 01:38 PM