4 ms·
>Back when the one-click Kodak dominated, most pictures—unflattering, off-center, accidental, overexposed, and everyone as red-eyed as vermin—were not worth kee
by i_am_proteus 5y ago
>Back when the one-click Kodak dominated, most pictures—unflattering, off-center, accidental, overexposed, and everyone as red-eyed as vermin—were not worth keeping.
The author appears to be referring to the point-and-shoot/disposable era (where the cheapest cameras often had no focusing mechanism), which might have been the nadir of photography, looking at "average photograph."
Photographs taken on good film by a moderately-skilled photographer with an SLR or rangefinder camera from the 1970s (or even earlier) look great.
Here's an example from ca. 1945: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppprs.00004/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppprs.00004/
- asdasiodjaoij 5y agoIs this satire? your example is taken neither from an SLR nor a rangefinder. And it's taken by Ansel Adams. This has to be satire
- i_am_proteus 5y agoNot satire. It's from a 4x5 negative, so you're correct, probably not an SLR or a rangefinder, he did favor the 4x5 view camera. Which is an even more complicated mechanism to use than SLR or rangefinder types. Still highlights that good-quality photographs were taken in decades past.