What gives old photographs that distinct, "other-worldy"

>>2939982
Hitler

Low contrast lens into a high contrast process

film is just that good.

>>2939988
this, its often referred to as bloom

>>2939982
Fucking huge sensors also called large format.
The DOF is not what we're used to seeing in this age of small sensors and cellphones so it gives a very different vibe to most pictures.

>>2939993
>sensors
...

>>2939999
Film is a chemical sensor you giganigger. It reacts to light.

>>2940006
>using a specialized term in a wrong context
>insisting on etymology
>giganigger

Don't you dare ever have said 'genius' to a female, because 'genius' means originally 'male sex' and is not applicable for a woman.

>>2940018
>sensor
>specialized term
Nah mate you're just ignorant as fuck.

>>2940023
ask 1000 photographers what they associate with the term 'sensor'.

q.e.d.

>>2940024
My lightmeter.

Suck it.

Also completely applicable to film
"
>sensor

ˈsɛnsə/

noun

noun:sensor; plural noun:sensors

a device which detects or measures a physical property and records, indicates, or otherwise responds to it.
"

Suck it again.

>>2940026
1st cyclic argument after two pists. wow.

see: >>2940018

>>2939999
here anon falseflags as autist.

>>2940006
>>2940018
>>2940023
>>2940024

and here other anon takes the obvious bait and engage in a stupid exchange.

its like you guys are actively invested on making the board be total shit.

>>2940028
the whole thread was shit in the first place. what utter bullshit to talk about.

>>2940024
>>2940027
It's not a specific term. Sensor is something that is sentitive to something.
You get a speed reading on your car because of a sensor. You get weather reports because of sensors. Film registers light because it is a sensor. Digital sensors do the same.

What the fuck m8 open a book once in your life.

>>2940028
also this, I took the bait I hope. Nobody can be this stupid.

>>2940030
it is a specialized term in the world of photography you enormous ape.

"I have a new camera with a great sensor."

"wow, great. in which unit does it show the atmospheric moisture?"

gosh, you moron. unbearable are people like you.

hey pals

could we, like, talk about OPs question for a moment?

and leave that autistic term wanking for some stupid questions thread?

possibly related, http://petapixel.com/2015/10/15/why-old-sports-photos-often-have-a-blue-haze/

>>2939982
The bandwidth of the colours on film were much greater. This adds depth, texture and realism to the shots.

Ever seen a bright coral coloured dress on tv, that instantly transforms into a flat, bright, blob of colour, that's because digi and the srgb palette is limited as fuck.

its all about the deep tones(TM).

File: 1280px-thumbnail.jpg (191KB, 1280x1013px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x1013px

>>2940051

>The bandwidth of the colours on film were much greater.

While this may be true (or afaik it used to be true in digital vs. contemporary color film, idk about WW2-era film) I don't think you can argue that it's the larger color pallet of film, when we're looking at a jpg on an sRGB monitor.

What I think does it is the fact that color film at the time was slow by todays standards. Indoor shots in factories are all either shot with flash, or are staged- you can see how well the subjects are lit vs. background. It detaches the subject from context and focuses our attention- my read on it. Obviously these people didn't work in near darkness.

OP image is by Alfred Palmer, or at least shot in the same style. >Alfred T. Palmer was notable for his portraits of men and women at work in the industry. He used a crude lighting system which focused on the person rather than his environment, sometimes creating an extreme contrast in his images.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alfred_T._Palmer

File: 20944-IMG-6501.jpg (65KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 750x600px

>>2939982
as has been stated, large and medium format film, but also and more importantly the old film stocks had a different rendition of colour.

Combine that with much more simple lens designs (eg tessar) and single coatings, you get a very different feel from what we are used to.

>>2940379
>>2940385
Both of these.

The ultimate gearfagging quest for high ISO sharp lenses led us to a completely different aesthetic. Then add in the boost on DR highlights on film and you're golden.

>>2940379
This is a good point. It's probably worth adding how different the flashes of the era were, too - they were likely to be flashbulbs and not electronic flash, and were probably being used with a big reflector and a bare bulb facing the subject, so it'd effectively be a really big unmodified flash instead of the small flash into a big softbox/umbrella that's common these days.

>>2940030
nobody calls it that. holy fuck just get out already