3 ms·
For me it's usually more the quality of the film/print/color/etc. Most 70s pics have a certain color/tone/hue/saturation that says '70s'. 60s too. And so on.
by mgkimsal 5y ago
For me it's usually more the quality of the film/print/color/etc. Most 70s pics have a certain color/tone/hue/saturation that says '70s'. 60s too. And so on. There may be easier determinations between 1920s and 1930s pics, perhaps, but not quickly to my eye.
What's interesting about these is that... they're candid. Most 1800s photos were people explicitly sitting for a photo. Not smiling. Sitting, posing, very grim. Many of these pics showed people being natural - smiling, chatting to each other, etc. Normal human stuff.
- 13of40 5y agoThe disturbing thing for me is that I noticed that special atmosphere/patina in 70s photos when I was a teenager in the 90s, but now I can see something analogous in pictures from the 90s.
- rjp0008 5y agoThe same thing will exist for people in 2010/2030 because of computational photography filters/algos.
- RotaryTelephone 5y agoIn 2050s they'll look at today's smart phone selfies and wonder why people liked these smooth skin auto glamour edited fakes so much. Then the androids will chuckle to themselves and move on.
- fxtentacle 5y agoThey'll probably do societal studies to determine if it helped with mating, just like how we analyze those colorful birds dancing weirdly in the forest.
- kristofferR 5y agoI think it will have much more to do with the lack of HDR of today's photos. Generally it's a shame that real HDR photos (not merged exposures, but "Dolby Vision for photos") ain't the norm yet.