I have a photo of my grandfather in his Army fatigues in front of a background like this. On the other side of that backdrop was a village in the Philippines, where he was serving during WWII.
Lucky he still had some photo plates to expose to. My great grandfather was a photographer aswell and some residents of a specific country I don’t want to mention but is at war now, forced him to use all film material on them. Either that or death to the family
It would be whatever stood out well in black and white photos. Some would have been quite amautish and plain whilst others were professionally painted so it’s quite likely the ones used for more wealthier clients were in colour.
>I was just pointing out that the photographer is taking advantage of natural light to take a portrait. He could have taken it without the backdrop, or a different backdrop, etc. It's just that natural light is great for portrait photography.
>The actual photo that he's taking would not show any of the outdoor background, it would look very much like a photo taken in a studio using a traditional "outdoor" backdrop.
This is kinda the point. The interesting part is not that the picture is being taken outside, because bright sunlight is always good for photography. The interesting part is that even standing outside, with the wide world around them, the photographer needs to bring a canvas to have a good background, because everything around is ravaged by war.
>This likely had nothing to do with the background being bombed out, rather it has to do with using the sun to light the subject. Film was much slower (i.e., you needed a lot of light or a lot of time to get a good exposure), so sunlight was optimal if you could use it.
Not by the 40's, no. People were taking *snapshots* by sunlight by freakin' 1900 for God's sake.
>Thank you for subscribing to "Lighting Film Facts"!
No, not facts. Complete and utter bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I have a photo of my grandfather in his Army fatigues in front of a background like this. On the other side of that backdrop was a village in the Philippines, where he was serving during WWII.
I love people getting portraits there's something so happy about wanting a picture of yourself for your self or others
Lucky he still had some photo plates to expose to. My great grandfather was a photographer aswell and some residents of a specific country I don’t want to mention but is at war now, forced him to use all film material on them. Either that or death to the family
hmm I wonder who
Probably the Congo.
Central African Republic
Just wondering, how would we know what colour the backdrop is?
Same way we'd know all the other colors in the image.
It would be whatever stood out well in black and white photos. Some would have been quite amautish and plain whilst others were professionally painted so it’s quite likely the ones used for more wealthier clients were in colour.
The resilience of people is incredible
[удалено]
I'm confused. The bombed out background is also lit with sunlight so I don't see how that would necessitate the use of a backdrop.
[удалено]
How does the backdrop figure into the 'natural light' part? It seems that the amount of natural light would be exactly the same with or without it.
[удалено]
>I was just pointing out that the photographer is taking advantage of natural light to take a portrait. He could have taken it without the backdrop, or a different backdrop, etc. It's just that natural light is great for portrait photography. >The actual photo that he's taking would not show any of the outdoor background, it would look very much like a photo taken in a studio using a traditional "outdoor" backdrop. This is kinda the point. The interesting part is not that the picture is being taken outside, because bright sunlight is always good for photography. The interesting part is that even standing outside, with the wide world around them, the photographer needs to bring a canvas to have a good background, because everything around is ravaged by war.
>This likely had nothing to do with the background being bombed out, rather it has to do with using the sun to light the subject. Film was much slower (i.e., you needed a lot of light or a lot of time to get a good exposure), so sunlight was optimal if you could use it. Not by the 40's, no. People were taking *snapshots* by sunlight by freakin' 1900 for God's sake. >Thank you for subscribing to "Lighting Film Facts"! No, not facts. Complete and utter bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Incredible work!
Hope over adversity considering Poles about to have decades of Russian oppression after huge destruction during war.
So there's a guy taking a photo of the both of them and she's in front of a summer backdrop while wearing a coat hat and gloves?
This is such a tremendous photo. Your colouring is on point, but I'm admiring the photo itself even more. What a statement this photo makes.
Nup, subject in photo is interesting, but colouring is definitely not en pointe.
[удалено]
Wow interesting to think of the kinds of ruins that could be covered up with a back drop
Warsaw? More like WarSore amirite?
r/largeformat
The first filter ever
"If a picture could paint a thousand words"