Why is modern photography soulless?

>>4438612 (OP)
because that's a phone picture

>>4438612 (OP)
>Not level + blown highlights vs. well exposed and leveled
Is this really where the soul vs soulless debate is?

False nostalgia

Same reason you probably think the 50s were a great time to be alive

>>4438631
The focal length is also much wider and everything is sharpened. The composition is also way worse and the mom doesn't have a cool contrapposto stance

>>4438631
You're just stating what the picture shows. The question is, I guess, why don't people care about taking a good photo anymore?

Clearly they put some planning into the shoot, the right guy's t-shirt is an adult version of the same t-shirt. So they were planning it for at least a whole week if not months.

But it never occurred to them to get the photographic elements right? It's like people have given up, like good photography is a thing of the past and it's just not possible anymore.

>>4438649
Neither is a good photo. It's just candid with old kit vs planned. What's driving most of the "soul" is that gear they keep saying doesn't matter because "duhh fuhtography is art if you give me a phone i copy garry winogrand".

OLD KIT WAS:
16-24mp (35mm film)
FULL FRAME.
35mm, 50mm or 135mm lens

NEW KIT IS
Wide angle lens
10mp real resolution, with AI smears
Crop sensor

The cameraman didn't give a shit. I'm guessing that the old photo was candid, whereas the soibois in the new pic just wanted easy reddit/FB likes.

She aged remarkably well, better than her sons. Pretty woman.

The colors and lighting look a lot nicer. Phones have HDR syndrome, there's no blown highlights on the right but it looks boring. Film is basically like having a very nice preset slapped on your photos. The longer focal length looks nicer too as others have said but the film photo framed exactly the same way would look much better I think.

>>4438651
I was gonna say the same. How can such a beautiful women breed such ugly and fat suns?

>>4438612 (OP)
both looks creepy

DUDE OLD THING BETTER THAN NEW LMAO

>>4438612 (OP)
The children became ugly and fat, the mother is still beautiful.

>>4438612 (OP)
I dunno, the phone picture is dull but I don't really think the look of cheapo 200iso looks any better.

>>4438612 (OP)
>wide angle lenses take shitty portraits unless you get in someones face for comedic/dramatic effect
>digital HDR looks terrible and should never be used
and other hot tips from photo 101

>>4439942
>wide angle lenses
you just need to take reasonable distance between the subject.
Take a distance as same when you using 135mm then your 24mm photo will have the same character but more negative space.

>>4438612 (OP)
A big part of the problem is old photos feel like memories; the details are softened and blurred, colours are a little muted, and nothing is quite in perfect focus.
New photos (especially phone photos) are glaring and sharp, every sad nasty little detail stands out in stark relief; instead of the softness of memory, tinted by emotion, you get all the ugly minutiae of reality, with +500% saturation.

Also, what kind of attention seeking losers do you have to be, to set up a gay fucking recreation like this?
Fucking cringe.

>>4438649
>why don't people care about taking a good photo anymore?
Because it doesn't cost anything. People were reluctant to waste film. Quite ironic that with the increase in availability of cameras that the general population has become worse at taking photos. The auto everything also plays a role of course. As someone who buys and sells a lot of camera gear online it has become apparent that even people who have access to expensive equipment rarely take the time to learn how to use it.
>Let me just take a quick photo of the back of this Leica SL2 I'm gonna sell *snap*
>The photo shows a clear silhouette in the reflection from the LCD screen of someone using their phone to take pictures.
That is the essence of it.. the cellphone was the culmination. Another irony is that camera sales were high in the years when normies started considering phones to be OK so the market is saturated with DSLRs from the era that are barely touched.
>I want to learn photography
>WOW this smartphone is pretty cool
>DLSR gets chucked into the back of the closet
>Fast forward a decade
>Selling this barely used Canon 1100d that I bought because I had the intention of learning photography, but i lost interest.

>>4438612 (OP)
Full highlight recovery, medium contrast, perfect histogram spread, it is the result of mathematically defined distribution of lights, darks, & saturations set in post (even in cam it’s still in post) based on what a single team of programmers decided your shit should look like. Film was engineered too, but depended so much on so many environmental variables it was much more unpredictable, so you get a lot less consistency in film, and in that inconsistency come divergences from realism, and when your eye sees those differences your brain uses it’s imagination to consider different ways to fill in the rest of the information it wants to see, thus engaging the viewer in a more intellectually stimulating and subjective way. The “coldness” (or flatness) of digital imaging is due to its higher accuracy and consistency. The human mind finds mystery compelling, and digital leaves little to no room for mystery. And it’s not just imaging…

>>4440226
>old photos feel like memories
this was my first thought. left photo looks like a moment captured in time, right photo looks like something i could see if i looked outside.

>>4440226
I like your explanation the most.

>>4438612 (OP)
Good question

>>4438612 (OP)
right one looks gay. moms a fox tho