[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 41 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!




File: 32935STZRGB75.jpg (4.59 MB, 5126x5114)
4.59 MB
4.59 MB JPG
i have hundreds of these stock photo discs ranging from mid 90s to early 2000s, it's really a treat for me to have these photos at actual high resolution since most of them are either on the web as 2kb jpeg nightmares or you'll just find them at comping sizes in photo catalogs nowadays. so i'm going to dump some here and hopefully someone else can find inspiration in the photographic techniques of y2k stock photography
>>
File: 32961STZRGB75.jpg (4.34 MB, 4562x5745)
4.34 MB
4.34 MB JPG
>>
File: 32970STZRGB75.jpg (4.3 MB, 4358x6014)
4.3 MB
4.3 MB JPG
>>
File: 00128046.jpg (2.86 MB, 3413x5113)
2.86 MB
2.86 MB JPG
>>
File: 00128088.jpg (2.65 MB, 5108x3415)
2.65 MB
2.65 MB JPG
>>
File: Be01-008.jpg (4.1 MB, 2480x3508)
4.1 MB
4.1 MB JPG
>>
File: 00003812.jpg (3.91 MB, 2560x3822)
3.91 MB
3.91 MB JPG
if anyone has any requests for kinds of images or subject matter let me know i probably have something to suit your taste
>>
File: 00003829.jpg (3.16 MB, 3822x2560)
3.16 MB
3.16 MB JPG
>>
File: 00003864.jpg (4.76 MB, 2560x3822)
4.76 MB
4.76 MB JPG
>>
>>4062272
>if anyone has any requests for
big tits small girl
>>
File: PAH1860.jpg (2.76 MB, 1890x2835)
2.76 MB
2.76 MB JPG
>>4062276
i'll see what i can do, i have a couple beach/vacation discs to go through
>>
File: CAS089LH.jpg (2.1 MB, 3956x2650)
2.1 MB
2.1 MB JPG
>>
File: 545006.jpg (4.13 MB, 3576x2378)
4.13 MB
4.13 MB JPG
love the noise quality of this set
>>
File: 545059.jpg (2.04 MB, 3562x2447)
2.04 MB
2.04 MB JPG
>>
File: 545090.jpg (3.03 MB, 3616x2455)
3.03 MB
3.03 MB JPG
i'll be back
>>
File: CIC098LH.jpg (3.47 MB, 3918x2700)
3.47 MB
3.47 MB JPG
>>
>>4062271
Aside from the fingerprints this is particularly good looking, notice the out of focus transition, natural without the modern corrected shit.
Much appreciated OP.
>>
File: 7081BM1.jpg (3.73 MB, 3579x2743)
3.73 MB
3.73 MB JPG
i'm working on putting together a little studio to do the 90s style lighting for product photography, already have a continuous light and some gels and some diffusion filters, need a few more lights to get those multi-light contrasting colours you often see and a few more quirky prism / star filters to get more abstract effects
>>
File: 35074.jpg (1.06 MB, 1526x2312)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB JPG
>>
>>4062263
these are amazing thank you anon
>>
File: 35214.jpg (1.13 MB, 1526x2312)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
>>
File: 35250.jpg (756 KB, 1830x1830)
756 KB
756 KB JPG
>>4062304
>>4062301
no problem, it's actually a really interesting period of stock photography before getty bought up all the smaller firms, this was when there were hundreds of different small firms competing with each other and offering per photo purchasing but also you could get a subscription for something like $200/mo where you would get a disc with a few hundred photos on it you could use
>>
File: SS37054.jpg (3.18 MB, 2698x3693)
3.18 MB
3.18 MB JPG
>>
File: SS37034.jpg (2.06 MB, 3692x2696)
2.06 MB
2.06 MB JPG
>>
File: 15590CBU.jpg (4.14 MB, 5444x3907)
4.14 MB
4.14 MB JPG
>>
File: 15508CBU.jpg (4.51 MB, 3973x5355)
4.51 MB
4.51 MB JPG
if there was a way to express how i feel about this style is that it encapsulates a kind of techno-optimism that you can't find in the modern world
>>
These are all very grainy but in a cool way. I wonder which kind of films they used back then?
>>
File: 15529CBU.jpg (4.38 MB, 3917x5432)
4.38 MB
4.38 MB JPG
also a lot of the colours are getting messed up when i upload these, they might have some weird color profiles since they're ripped straight from the CDs onto my hard drive to here
>>
File: SS26057.jpg (1.31 MB, 3156x3156)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB JPG
>>4062311
i'm not 100% sure, but also my collection ranges from about 1995-2005, so by the later sets i'm sure they are using some early high-end digital cameras. but yes the film ones have a really satisfying grain
>>
File: SS20021.jpg (2.18 MB, 3156x3156)
2.18 MB
2.18 MB JPG
>>
File: SS20096.jpg (2.23 MB, 3156x3156)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB JPG
>>
File: 64153.jpg (1.04 MB, 3692x2696)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>>
File: iyf013.jpg (3.55 MB, 3922x5349)
3.55 MB
3.55 MB JPG
>>
File: iyf028.jpg (3.62 MB, 3919x5347)
3.62 MB
3.62 MB JPG
>>
File: 39047.jpg (1.55 MB, 2312x1526)
1.55 MB
1.55 MB JPG
>>
File: 39237.jpg (660 KB, 1878x1878)
660 KB
660 KB JPG
while sometimes i really enjoy the grain of the photos, at other times i'm amazed by how crisp and clean a file from 1996 can look
>>
File: 053P0103LL.jpg (2.99 MB, 3376x5181)
2.99 MB
2.99 MB JPG
>>
File: 031P0303LL.jpg (1.92 MB, 3376x5181)
1.92 MB
1.92 MB JPG
the early 2000s ones with direct flash have a really distinct uncanny look to them, i imagine that the photographers had still not got use to how a digital camera handles light compared to film, and i feel like the transition to digital killed a lot of the life of stock photography
>>
File: 093045.jpg (4.64 MB, 3412x2848)
4.64 MB
4.64 MB JPG
a lot of the photos i want to upload are over the file size limit and i'm too lazy to resize right now
>>
File: 54077.jpg (1.79 MB, 3156x3156)
1.79 MB
1.79 MB JPG
>>
File: SRT002LH.jpg (1.91 MB, 3417x3075)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
there is also the whole other world of photo montage and illustration when it comes to 90s stock but im sticking to pretty much just photography
>>
File: OAD048LH.jpg (1.86 MB, 2636x3978)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB JPG
>>
File: SPO073LH.jpg (1.4 MB, 2744x3828)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB JPG
>>
File: STU097LH.jpg (2.23 MB, 3515x3552)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB JPG
>>
these are fun to look at this was the era before the ubiquitous "lifestyle photography" look took over
>>
File: STU020LH.jpg (2.2 MB, 3255x3277)
2.2 MB
2.2 MB JPG
>>
File: 00010031.jpg (2.89 MB, 3658x2438)
2.89 MB
2.89 MB JPG
>>
File: 007554MG.jpg (2.44 MB, 5163x3450)
2.44 MB
2.44 MB JPG
>>
I wonder if someone still holds some manner of copyright etc. over these. In case someone wanted to use these publicly?
>>
File: 00006846.jpg (2.96 MB, 3822x2560)
2.96 MB
2.96 MB JPG
>>4062339
they were distributed on discs as "royalty free" images, but i assume that was under the assumption that you acquired those discs through paid subscription to the stock distributors service. i'm not sure.. i mostly use them as montage elements in personal graphic design stuff
>>
File: 00006899.jpg (3.01 MB, 2560x3822)
3.01 MB
3.01 MB JPG
>>
File: 55175.jpg (1.08 MB, 1604x2197)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
>>
File: 55123.jpg (719 KB, 1604x2197)
719 KB
719 KB JPG
>>
File: OS24108.jpg (1.05 MB, 2565x3885)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG
i assume the model here is using some gear that the photography actually used themselves, maybe an insight into their usual setup?
>>
File: 28104.jpg (2.71 MB, 3156x3156)
2.71 MB
2.71 MB JPG
>>
File: 28103.jpg (2.85 MB, 3156x3156)
2.85 MB
2.85 MB JPG
i'm tired of posting for now, gotta go take some of my own photos
>>
>>4062334
The shadow ALMOST touching the left edge really triggers my autism. Other than that it's nice
>>
>>4062342
That's definitely some /g/ meme fodder material right there
>>
>>4062335
fun for like 3.4 seconds. its all very soulless, colorful soulless.
>>
These rule. Thank for posting op
>>
>>4062284
>you know how I know Lenovo is the right computer for me? It's the smell!
>>
>>4062330
I love the number of blurry-ass photos that are straight up delete in camera rejects today that got into stock photo catalogues then.
And when you look at the creepy social retard boomers, who are ex-"pros", who are such salty gatekeepers about the non-existent barriers to entry now for photo and video work, but they shot dozens of weddings on 35mm neg in an F80 with a tamron superzoom and bare speedlight, and submitted shit like this for pay, and you realise that they're only sad that the extra money they spent on gear was a cheat code that doesn't work anymore, and your work actually needs to be of a competitive, merchantable standard that they're barely capable of today, and that with an internet and a secondhand camera and a 3 digit iq literally any person can learn the fundamentals of photography that were previously obfuscated behind paid courses and prohibitively expensive gear and lab bills.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4062397
Shut the fuck up
>>
File: 28006.jpg (2.09 MB, 3885x2565)
2.09 MB
2.09 MB JPG
>>4062397
i get your point but the photo you quoted is actually awesome, and if you realize it'd likely be used in a low print resolution hospital yearly report or medical journal it's more than suitable for it's intended use

now look at these beautiful smiling people
>>
File: 28032.jpg (3.21 MB, 2565x3885)
3.21 MB
3.21 MB JPG
>>
File: FAL2_027.jpg (1.35 MB, 1228x1696)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB JPG
>>4062276
best i can do for now
>>
File: LS_R_41.jpg (3.65 MB, 1439x1982)
3.65 MB
3.65 MB JPG
>>
File: 545101A.jpg (2.88 MB, 3604x2379)
2.88 MB
2.88 MB JPG
>>
File: 00128030.jpg (2.59 MB, 5079x3425)
2.59 MB
2.59 MB JPG
>>4062414
>>4062413
holy crap the color profile get absolutely nuked on these
>>
>>4062279
>"Hello? Based department?"
>>
>>4062405
>suitable for it's intended use
No doubt, but my point was more that I'd probably find the motion blur or lack of depth of field in that shot to be enough to rule it out of a facebook post. I'd certainly retake it if I'd chimped it on the spot.
>>
>>4062405
this desu
>>4062397
technical correction is overrated, if your picture is too pristine it's just boring
>>
>>4062456
>if your picture is too pristine it's just boring
not to me :^)
>>
>>4062415
Thanks OP. This is really cool. Are there any stock photography businesses anymore or is it all freelancers selling off photos?
>>
>>4062331
Totally tubular and gnarly
Do you have anything more like this, specifically computer related things? I would love to see some high resolution pictures of early circuit boards and PC hardware from the era.
>>
File: gamer.jpg (3.73 MB, 3417x3075)
3.73 MB
3.73 MB JPG
>>4062331

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:07:31 21:29:32
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3417
Image Height3075
>>
>>4063600
Can you post one with a blue or greenscreen so it's a highly exploitable image macro
Thx anon
>>
>>4062263
Upload the CDs to archive.org, anon.
>>
These are really fun, anon. Thanks for posting.
>>
comfy stuff
do you have some more wallstreet related stuff?
>>
>>4062329
could you dump them on another board?
>>
>>4063663
this, we can just download the whole ISO
>>
>>4063993
these are all wallpapers
>>
>>4062273
soulful thread.
>ywn be a yuppie in the 90's
>>
>>4062263
>>4062271
>>4062329
>>4062337
awesome pics
>>
these are awesome anon. are you still an active photographer? your captures of the era are all encapsulating
>>
>>4062263
wait, these aren't your photos, are they? I assumed you didn't take these but if you did that would be cool.
>>
>>4062273
Damn stock photography back then was inspired.
>>
>>4062314
I'm seeing a lot of old porta, 400h or other fuji, and slide. A lot of it looks scanned and color graded slightly.

>>4062344
Working backwards it's
Early photoshop < Plustek or other negative scanner < Standard issue SLR or MF studio camera, very controlled light metering for low key, lots of off camera flash with gels and modifiers.
CRTs and print media favor low key work with rich blacks over more high key works like this >>4062319 and even that is low key compared to the blown out look today.
>>
Thanks anon!
I always loved the lights in these. Can you share more with computers?
>>
>>4062273
its not apparent, but that on pic is a pink wojak seeing shit go down.
>>
You should put them in a zip and upload to the internet archive.
>>
>>4063663
Do it
>>
Upload your archive to some torrent so we can se all. I find this period of time and anything related to it the best period of all times. Aesthetic at its peak.
>>
>>4062309
>waiting on OP to deliver
>>
Kino thread
>>
>>4062397
but Tim, you've never made a cent
>>
these are good can you turn them into a torrent?
>>
>>4062309
Nice
>>
>>4062310
It’s pre-web 2.0.

Simple as.
>>
>>4062265
90s mission impossible to insert the floppy disk vs modern ironic piss take because it's the only way to get noticed now. Both are great in their own ways but I do prefer the old style, I always thought the ads and other pics in 90s computer mags looked cool as hell

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D80
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern762
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution0 dpi
Vertical Resolution0 dpi
Image Created2009:10:28 00:06:05
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFlash
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length26.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3872
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4062265
tfw when a usb external HD fails and you're trying to stab it back into your mobo
>>
cool. they knew how to use flashes to put accents in their pictures
>>
>>4065898
bump
>>
>>4062282
>noise

if these are mid ninetues photos, than its most likely scanned film, so there is no "noise", thats actual grain
>>
>>4062397
>gear was a cheat code that doesn't work anymore, and your work actually needs to be of a competitive, merchantable standard that they're barely capable of today, and that with an internet and a secondhand camera and a 3 digit iq literally any person can learn the fundamentals of photography.

gear is still a cheat code. Fast shutter speeds, fast readout speeds, fast GOOD glass is more expensive than ever, as is fast autofocus, extra buttons and better control layouts normally which mean higher price, as does higher res sensors, monitors, and EVFs, battery life, battery compatibility, reliability, weather sealing, quality file formats, and good video hybridization, connectability, etc, etc...all drive the price of the equipment up, but also cut the time of delivery of the final product.

The guy with T7 Rebel CAN get the job done, but the guy with the R5, Z9, A1 is going to get it done faster and with less work.

The only barrier to entry that has REALLY been removed is needing to actually know how to expose properly and having a full on darkroom for processing and editing, and even then the cost of that equipment has really just shifted to the cost of computer equipment, and the CONTINUING cost of software services
>>
>>4062307
neato
>>
>>4062310
Ive seen things popping up under a "y2k aesthetic"
>>
rare good /p/ thread, saved some of these
it'll be greatly appreciated If you can share more still life/product photography
>>
bump



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.