>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291612 Yeah they did. Choosing their developer to get different contrast/graininess, dodging and burning, unsharp-masking in the old-school wise, hand toning, etc. Not as *many* people did it, because it was a hell of a lot harder, but a lot of people at the high end put a lot of work into their prints. Read up on Ansel Adams for an example.
Also, B in the D, some of the postprocessing that's more or less standard now with digital wasn't necessary. You didn't need to slap an S curve on the tones because film responded that way right out of the canister, for instance.
Not sure how much shopping is actually there, in any case. Aspect ratio and overall quality suggest a DSLR, which should be good enough to produce shallow DoF on its own. It might be full frame with a shitty lens on it with lots of falloff and blur at the edges. Or, as you say, it might be a vignette filter and too much gaussian blur.
(For the record: if it is 'shopping, I would prefer it without. I'm just saying that the idiots decrying postprocessing and pointing to the glorious manipulation-free past are just as wrong as the people in the early 1900s who decried postprocessing and pointed to the glorious manipulation-free past. Lrn2history.)
|