>>3668144What? What difference does it make if pic related had modern clothing or not? It would still be the same aesthetic/quality
>>3668273>>3668280Look up Cindy Sherman "Untitled Film Stills", light is definitely NOT the biggest difference she literally took pictures at home or outside alone.
>>3668340I searched for them and laughed pretty hard honestly. NONE, absolutely ZERO FUCKING NONE of these presets of the image closely resembles ANYTHING from the 60s-70s era. They are not even comparable in any way, I don't see how a human can evolve for millions of years only to end up saying a lou&marks preset or any photoshop looks like something out of a Stanley Kubrick Movie
>>3668354That looks like 20s, 30s, not 70s. Pic related is 70s
>>3668363I said 60s-70s, not victorian age
>>3668378k
>>3668333The only sane person in this thread. You are right thanks