How do you achieve pictures like these? I don't see people taking pictures like these anymore, for the most part.
I know the clothes, etc. give it away, but, apart from that, there's just something very unique to that period's style, but I can't quite put my finger on it. What is it exactly?
I know I could shoot in b/w and it would look nothing like this. There's like some sort of glow or blur or something about the lighting.
Am I onto something here or just being retarded?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 958 Image Height 1200 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2008:09:10 08:55:19 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 958 Image Height 1200
Do you know what I mean?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 796 Image Height 1000
butterfly lighting
noob
>>2862626
Hard light, makeup, and styling.
>>2862648
>hard light
Disagree.
These models were expertly lit with soft light. The goal of the photographer was to maximize the dynamic range of the image without any of the whites or blacks getting blown out. The details are still visible in the blacks and whites. If you want to duplicate this look, then it's trial and error until you learn the limitations of your digital camera or film stock. Some good tutorials on youtube which explain two and three light setups for lighting portrait photography.
>>2862662
just smear vaseline on your lens and shoot classic beauties
it's not hard faggot
>>2862666
The look can be achieved in editing of digital images without smearing anything.
>>2862666
>satanic trips of deceit
the vaseline-on-lens meme started because naive casting couch models would often ask "why do you have such a big container of Vaseline for?"
these chicks are fine as fuck
Orthochromatic film.
>>2862626
Look up these photographers:
Ned Scott
Robert W Coburn
Clarence Sinclair Bull
George Hurrell
Hurrell may be the most important on that list for what you are looking for
Also, you will need a Large Format Camera, Medium Format, Full Frame, APS-C, MFT just will not cut it
Good Luck
>>2862626
Hurrell's equipment and technique are discussed here:
http://photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00IDQ3
>>2862712
>you will need a Large Format Camera, Medium Format, Full Frame, APS-C, MFT just will not cut it
I think you might have comma instead of period.
please clarify what you meant in normal english for newbie.
>>2862712
Those are amazing
>>2862662
>Disagree.
You can disagree all you want, but all 4 of these show hard light, and the shadows give it away with such obvious heavy handedness that I think you might be trolling.
In case you're not, and still can't see it, let me know, and I'll go through and circle all of the well defined hard shadows.
>>2862715
All those guys used Large Format Cameras
To get the look, with digital, Medium Format comes the closest, but anything smaller will not be good enough
>>2862745
gotcha, thanks
>>2862745
completely ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing about the look of these images that isn't reproducible with even M4/3.
If you'd like to go into specifics of the characteristics that seem so exclusive to you, feel free, and we can talk about it.
>>2862756
Smooth tonality, extremely shallow depth of field, fine detail..
There was a guy who posted photos just like these on /p/ about 5 or 6 years ago. He shot 11x14 if I recall correctly.
>>2862774
>extremely shallow depth of field
Wat
>>2862774
Your smooth tonality comes from the light, and is well within the range of a digital sensor. The "extremely shallow depth of field" is coming on a large format lens from the 40s, which means it was probably smaller than f/16. With f/1.2 lenses available for full frame, this is absolutely achievable with a dslr. As far as fine detail, you might have a point if these were 8x10 contact prints, but they're 1200 pixel jpegs on /p/. There is no level of detail you can see at 1200 pixels that isn't possible on a 16mp sensor from 2011.
>>2862778
Whatever you gotta tell yourself, kiddo.
>>2862780
I'm sorry that you've never learned to use your camera, and have just decided that all the "magic" you see is due to format sizes, without ever trying to use your eyes or your brain.
Why bother to learn light when you can just say all your photos look bad because you're using too small a sensor, right?
Are you also "these aren't hard light" guy?
>>2862782
nigga i shoot large format lmao
>>2862784
Oh, so you WERE that guy, and then you bought the gear you thought was magic, and never bothered to learn what was possible with your old gear.
What's your excuse now? All the good film is dead? Models are all sluts these days? Can't afford to shoot the good photos you want?
>>2862791
nigga i still shoot digital too lmao why are you so eager to project
show me one good hollywood style portrait on m4/3.
I'll wait.
>show me one good hollywood style portrait on m4/3
Before that ever happens we will all get old, die, crumble into dust and blow away in Sol's dying stellar wind.
Of course the large format images will still look great
The film tonality in these can be approximated with digital processing, but I think you would need to be shooting on some old glass to get the sorts of soft focus and highlight flaring that you see with these images.
>>2862793
Absolutely can't be even remotely bothered go on that hunt to pander to your ignorant ass, but it did slightly remind me of some of the stuff posted by Damien Lovegrove, who shoots APS-C (Fuji, in this case)
http://www.prophotonut.com/2016/01/15/fuji-x-pro2-review-and-high-res-sample-shots/
I'm totally prepared for the post you've already typed that says "Nigga that looks nothing like it" for posting, no matter what images I load (hoping I don't pull a reverse on your and load a large format shot pretending it's M4/3) so don't hold back.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh) Photographer Damien Lovegrove Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:14 01:28:07 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Brightness 2.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2862804
Looks like a fuck-load more detail to me. Eyelashes alone. Not to even begin to bother comparing hair, or skin texture.
>>2862810
not only that, the bokeh falloff looks stupid and gimicky.
>>2862810
>skin texture
ell emm ayy ohh
>>2862814
Here's the full res sample if you really want to nitpick about it. Feel free.
http://www.prophotonut.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Fuji-X-Pro2-high-res-sample-17.jpg
>>2862815
What the fuck is going on with the noise in that photo? It looks like one of those MS Paint bucket fill mazes that you use to test your cpu speed.
>>2862813
yuuup, that's exactly what kills his image for me.
Studio Harcourt still makes these kind of shoot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software PaintShop Pro 17,00 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 475 Image Height 676 Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:14 16:38:49 Image Width 475 Image Height 676
>>2862633
She has really hairy arms. She's very feminine and attractive, but has very hairy arms. I feel like something has awakened in me...
>I did not ask for this fetish
>>2863073
Find some Zooey Deschanel threads on /hr/
![28-arnold-schwarzenegger[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/luUO6iF.jpg "28-arnold-schwarzenegger[1].jpg")
>>2863057
>Studio Harcourt
Very cool, do you know anything you can share about their process?
>>2862817
>MS Paint bucket fill mazes that you use to test your cpu speed.
Please elaborate!
>>2863632
google "hardware+stress+tests"
>>2863736
Focus is subjective. Can you tell who they are? Can you see some detail in their face? It's in focus. You may not want the absolute sharpest point of focus to be on your subject's pupil, contrary to autofocus amateur belief. It's a great way to highlight every flaw, wrinkle and imperfection on her face.
>>2863823
>autofocus amateur belief. It's a great way to highlight every flaw, wrinkle and imperfection on her face
nigga this is an excuse that people give who can't get those areas in focus. in older times this is what soft focus lenses and/or lots of makeup were for. and with a soft focus lens, you still need to focus right.
It still often happens to this day that maybe a less in focus pic gets chosen as the final one over a more in focus one because that's the one that had the right expression. But back before polaroids and more accurate viewfinders, sometimes you only realized after developing that the focus was a little off. Especially with large format.
