this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

24 readers
1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

was looking at some old photos of Kate bush, Stevie Nicks, and some other celebrities photoshoots from that time period and admiring the glowy affect or the purple and red colour palette on the photos wondering how I can achieve that same effect and then I realized that they did not have online editing software or even internet but the photos still look very nice and not like raw images I usually see. This may be a dumb question, I am not a photographer and do not know much about all this stuff but I am just curious.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JaZepi@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] EyePuzzleheaded4699@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No sarcasm. Selectol was real. It was one of Kodak many products offered to create a certain look.

[–] JaZepi@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There was plenty of post production prior to digital. lol

[–] EyePuzzleheaded4699@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Certainly true. We chose those materials that were best suited to the image. Be it film, chemistry or paper. Not to mention, a little dodge and burn along the way. Very few images were printed, delivered and used straight except the amateur roll stuff.

And there was no shortage of retouching the image to remove something, add something and my favorite part, airbrushing wrinkles and other things some art director wanted gone.

Had high quality digital been with us in 1960, film and paper would have been long gone.