/p/ - Photography » Thread #4245462

[8 / 1 / 5]

1MiB, 530x805, yjhytj.png

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 06:40:03 No.4245462 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4245465 >>4245499 >>4245514

I have been studying this photo I came across on flickr.

It is shot on a dslr. How does it manage to look so retro? It has kind of a 90s/2000s feel to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 06:44:04 No.4245463 Report

Quoted By: >>4245464

No one's used to seeing real background blur anymore, it's either everything in focus or fake iphone "bokeh"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 06:45:37 No.4245464 Report

Quoted By:

>>4245463

good point, it is a really busy background, but its blurred quite nicely so your eyes basically dont even see the background, but it adds a mood I guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 06:49:55 No.4245465 Report

Quoted By: >>4245468

>>4245462
well first of all DSLRs were very popular in the 2000s. But mostly I think it's her. She is dressed like peak 00s stacy. The brown and bleached-blonde hair, the hot pink bikini, low rise shorts and whatever those specific sunglasses are called. All of it is extreme mid to late 00s to the point I'm sure she must be doing it on purpose.

other things that help are the warm yellow-greens and the fact that people are outside interacting and you can't see in phones in shot

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 06:54:56 No.4245468 Report

Quoted By: >>4245473

>>4245465

The picture is legitimately from that time period, I am just trying to figure out how the mood gets in there.
The type of camera and the way the photograph looks and feels is different to how modern photos look and feel.
The other poster might be onto something about that type of bg blur not so common anymore.
It had no exif so I dont know what focal length or fstop it is. Also the eidting looks very minimal.

You might be right about the sunglasses and hair, I feel I dont see that look anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 07:07:41 No.4245473 Report

Quoted By:

>>4245468
Oh I misunderstood. I thought the photo was modern. Yeah I think he's probably right. If this pic were modern and candid like this it would have been taken on a phone, so I think context is probably a big part of it. It's also definitely longer than 24mm which is the phone standard. I don't see anything particularly unusual in the image character. I think it's literally just that it looks 00s because the people look very 00s and photos like this are no longer taken with a ILC

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 08:46:16 No.4245499 Report

Quoted By:

>>4245462
Definitely 00s for all the reasons people have pointed out. Mainly that it doesn’t look like it was done on a phone, and nobody looks like this anymore.
But it also doesn’t look 90s. At most the very very late 90s. Because it’s obviously digital and a casual snapshot like this in the mid 90s would have been on film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Oct 2023 09:57:32 No.4245514 Report

Quoted By:

>>4245462
It's shot almost certainly in jpeg with a daylight white balance, and with some kind of "daynamic range optimisation" or "Active-D Lighting" setting enabled.
>but the noughtis look is 1000% caused by the ratchet boltons/faketan/regrowth/gucci sunnies style that tramp is repping

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches