I’m not sure if “bright” is the best description, but I was skimming the wiki article on JFK the other night and was struck by the difference in the colour images compaged to later colour pix. Why do they have that brighter look?
Here’s one example of what I mean:
Paging @pulykamell …
I’m not sure what you mean specifically. This picture is very obviously lit, and you can see all sorts of lighting reflections on the windows, framed document, and the chair he’s sitting on. So there’s a lot of front lighting going on. The main source of light seems to be almost on-axis, coming slightly from the left (judging by the shadow near his left arm.) It also has the look of the camera using on-camera or nearly on-camera flash (like from a flash bracket), which tends to flatten everything out. However, I don’t see it from this angle of the photo:
I don’t see any photographers with an on-camera flash unit, so I’m not sure where that light slightly to the left is coming from.Though, wait, that balding photographer right in front maybe (?) has something that looks like a flash on him, so maybe that’s it.
Do you have photos you’re comparing it to so I can see what you’re talking about?
OK, here’s the light source from the left (right in this picture):
So it doesn’t look like there’s any camera flash. That photographer I pointed out did have a flash (I found another photo which verified it), but it was on his medium format camera, and the photo you posted was from a 35mm camera (according to the sources I found, and I don’t see anyone with a flash on their 35mms.)
I just skimmed the Obama page. Maybe it’s just me, but i would say that the modern colour pics look … more nuanced? The browns and blues in the Kennedy pics look bolder to me. I’m not sure I can explain it better.
And it’s not specifically the Kennedy pix. I can often identify a colour photo as having been taken in the 60s, even if I’m not familiar with the subject.
Those photos would have been given careful attention by skilled pros in a darkroom at a newspaper or magazine. They would have adjusted the color to highlight faces and facial skin tone which would have been consider the most important aspect of those pictures. Skin color has become a new subject of controversy within the world of imaging, but even aside from that people wore dull muted colors back in the 60s before the acrylic age started. Before you could blink an eye avocado appliances were everywhere.
I know what you mean and have noticed it for years. While I don’t have an explanation, my guess is it has to do with the film quality/speed used (or something with the camera lenses). I’ll add I love the way they look. It’s distinctly 1960s.
ETA: I think the colors look more intense than later photos (commenting on Northern_Piper’s question about “nuanced”.
Well, the look and feel of digital is definitely different than film. Lots of color biases in film (mostly calibrated towards Caucasian skin tones), but different stocks would give you different color palettes. Those would also be taken with fairly high ISO film for the time (800? Or maybe pushed 400?), so the contrast curve on those is more extreme, which may be what you’re talking about when you say modern photos are more “nuanced.”
Here’s a modern photo from the same room. The colors - blue, yellow, red, orange - look more vibrant in the modern photo to me.
Yeah, digital film sensitivity has come a long way since film. Whereas back then you really wouldn’t want to shoot past 800 or 1600 ISO on color stock, these days, you don’t even really start seeing noise until, say, 3200 ISO and color reproduction is way better than back in the film days for such high ISOs. I shoot pretty regularly at 6400 ISO and even have gone up to 12K and 25K, something completely impossible for film if you want anything other than grain the size of boulders. (AndI wish somebody would straighten that picture. The arbitrary tilt is driving me nuts.)
An obvious difference is the modern room has a lot more light in it.
Here’s a more colorful Kennedy in Oval Office photo:
Didn’t know JFK was into whales.
I’ve not noticed this is pictures much. But I have noticed it in older color TV. The colors tended to be very saturated when it first came out. I didn’t know if it was the technology or sort of a pendulum reaction. I’ve also noticed that there is a trend these days where people color grade their videos to be lower saturation if they want them to be more “theatrical.” Personally, I think they look undersaturated.
I have noticed that browns stand out more in older photos, which I assumed had to do with the pigments degrading over time. I’ve actually restored some of them to the point they look like they were taken today. The automated contrast stretching looks too blue, so you have to balance it out.
But, to me, those browns make them look darker, not brighter.
JFK was apparently a passionate ship model and scrimshaw collector:
https://jfk.artifacts.archives.gov/collections/9196/president-kennedys-ship-model--scrimshaw-collections/objects/images?page=1
Kodachrome?
Gives the nice bright colours,
gives you the greens of summer,
makes you think all the world’s a sunny day…
For 35mm press, I find it unlikely positive film was being used. I could be wrong.
Beat me to it. Instamatic and Polaroid pictures were the norm. Now everything had many filters and settings that were available in high end cameras but most everyday users went with either Polaroid or Kodachrome.
Some Kodachrome photos:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/kodachrome-europe-photos-traveler
You’d happily pay good money to hear JFK repeatedly say scrimshaw in his particular Boston accent.
Back in the day I worked in a photo lab which gave me a lot of latitude to play around with both shooting and development techniques. I would take recently expired film that we couldn’t sell, say some Fuji Velvia 400 and push it 2 or 3 stops to force the grain. I got some cool shots as a result.