>tfw pictures of the olden days >tfw some of these com

looks kino.

>>2981462
thx for sharing anon!

File: bg0057_1a34697v_enlarge.jpg (22KB, 725x513px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 725x513px

Cool stuff. Thanks for reminding me of this too.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bound-for-glory/exhibition-items.html

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1800 dpi
Image Created	2009:05:11 10:25:23
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	725
Image Height	513

I have an issue with olde-timey large format and/or roll-film photos presented like this. Most of the ones on that mashable article look scanned and minimally processed, for example the church is obviously and distractingly crooked in one of them.

I've seen this sort of thing before: negatives get scanned in, and in the name of "not interfering with the artistic vision", they don't get even a minimal white/black point adjustment, let alone a grey point that would make skin look like skin or any other reference you might want, or rotate the image to straighten that damn church up. All of these methods have an equivalent (or analog) in the photochemical darkroom, and all were routinely applied.

So why do the ding-dongs scanning these in not 1) do at least a little bit of post besides "invert", and 2) publish the raw fucking scans as well?

File: uploads_2016_12_7_norwaystereoviews_19.jpg (379KB, 1191x1440px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1191x1440px

This comp is so bold

>>2981880
>So why do the ding-dongs
They're ding-dongs

>>2981988
>this town is mine, cunt

>>2981993
>so rich, can even have only me be in the picture.

>>2981880
Are you talking about the posted images? Contrast looks fine, good tonal separation, blacks look black and highlights aren't muddy.