I'm doing a pinup photoshoot but I hate how modern pinup

>>2934864
Shoot it clean and sharp, then dick with things like vintage film filters and blurring.

The old school way is to smear vaseline on a lens (or like a UV filter for easier cleaning), then shoot through that, but I strongly suggest you do it digitally to a sharp image because that gives you more control over the final look.

>>2934868
No. They would either use softfocus lenses or a softfocus filter, sometimes combined with a film without an anti-halation layer.

>>2934864

just shoot film maiman. crappy ass emulsion+oldass lens will give you the exact look youre looking for.

>>2934868
this is garbage.

>>2934875
this is true.

>>2934864
Pin up photos in general look like shit, but use either a soft lens/ soft filter, and just apply ugly ass VSCO polaroid presets.
Vaseline will make the photo look like it was taken in a hazy/foggy environment, which is fine if that's what you're going for, but it looks different than soft filters.

Shoot Portra in medium format.

Movie lenses were netted, I presume they did it with photography lenses too. Silk stocking material stretched over the rear element.

Smack your dick on the front element and you're done

>>2934864
Get an old uv filter, smear the front thinly with vaseline and screw it on

>>2934868
>>2934875
>>2934924
>>2935308

That's soft focus, the "vintage" look was done by directly manipulating their emulsion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809555/The-Photoshop-1940s-70-year-old-vibrating-machine-retouched-negatives-using-pencil-airbrush.html

It's fucking difficult and supplies are thin on the ground now.

>>2935335

lmfao get that shitty reddit link out of here, dumbass.

>>2935335
I doubt this was very common. It looks like one of those 1900s meme machines like you see in those clickbait "you'll never guess this 16 weird old inventions!"-articles. Most 'editing' was done with caked layers of make-up and a lot of lighting, combined with soft focus techniques like vaseline and stockings.

Anyways, whoever is right, I think I'm going to try the vaseline thing sometime in the near future, it sounds like a fun and simple to do trick

>>2935445
retouching negatives was done all the time, half decent wedding photographers would even do it.

>>2935504
I know, but not with this machine, at least not on a significant scale. Retouching is a lot older than 1946.

>>2935335
they didn't have soft focus lenses back then?

>>2934864
Just use negative dehaze in LR when you're done. you have a clean 'negative' to work with always

Easiest cheapest way to do it? Download Nik collection for free, go to town with analog effex. Not the best maybe, but it does do the trick in some cases.

>>2935575
No but they had soft lenses from cheap manufacturing, not intentionally soft, just cheap lenses