Mine was meant to be very positive (but terse).
For color work I moved from K-chrome 32 to K-chrome 64 in about 1974 and never looked back. I tried a roll or 2 of Ektachrome and some Fuji and Agfa, but never felt the colors looked "honest" in anything but Kodachrome.
Speaking of "honest," your calendar shots from those days look so much more honest than anything I see these days. Thanks again for sharing them.Eric
Thank you again, Eric; it might well be a product of the new system of working with all those added people on set or location. I suppose they all have to do something to prove they are not a waste of money, so WYS is no longer WYG. Yes, there is a big difference in how models are often made to now look, but personally, I think they stop looking human at their peril.
It’s something that comes to mind whenever I see those old Magnum Marilyn pictures, of her on the set of The Misfits: she looks real, and I believe that that’s why those movie stars of the time were movie stars: people could relate. Who on Earth can relate with the stills that now appear of the contemporary actresses on the covers of Vogue or elsewhere? They simply don’t project any humanity and not even a vestige of character.
It’s a sort of circle: the older, very retouched styles were absolutely as unreal as the current ones; there seems to have been a period somewhere in the middle when stars were projected as accessible, even though there was no way that was true. But you could believe that they were.
March of the times, I guess; the struggle to appear inventive even when people are perfectly happy with what they already have. Don’t mention cars!
;-)
Rob C
