why DO teenage girls go through a witch/occult phase? I had tarot cards and a spellbook and I knew a group of girls who messed with ouija boards and another who had ghost hunting equipment. “oh yeah Cindy’s just going through that girly phase where she tries to raise the dead.”
theory – we want power and know our culture doesn’t want to give us any?
Addendum: witches are one of the few cultural figures of female empowerment that don’t derive their power from their relationship to a man.
Galaxy brain: all women have suppressed magic inside them waiting to be unleashed
Some of these outfits are the raddest things I’ve ever seen.
Can we talk about the tights.
The existence of photos like these (and similar photos from the 70s and 80s and so on) makes me wonder yet again why current-day movies set in this time never seem to be able to get the hair and clothing right.
Okay, so the photo’s are really good, the outfits are on point, it’s very natural. but I’m going to call bullshit on that they are 1969 high school freshmen. For one they are all too beautiful to be high school freshman, of any era. And another the photography doesn’t look like photo’s from the 1960’s or 70’s, it’s much better. I’m no expert but, for the most part, i’m pretty sure black and what was still standard, and color photo’s didn’t look nearly this good unless they we’re taken by a professional camera, which I doubt many high school freshmen just had lying around.
Even a professional camera in this era wasn’t this good. It would still be more grainy. Just going by the surrounds and people in the background who obviously aren’t intended to be in the photo along with the hair, this is some modern college kid’s pop culture project.
I don’t know, considering I have owned a Leica M3 from 1959, and a few other cameras from that era, a Nikon F, a 1962 original Minolta Hi-Matic and others from that era , and have got awesome shots with those cameras which are all35mm cameras, I fucking rent a Hasselblad 500C/M, introduced in 1957 for paid jobs because with good reversal (slide) film you can get super sharp 120 megapixel shots for a fraction of the cost of renting a 40 or 50 megapixel medium format system like a H4D because the negative is 6 by 6 cm. Okay, going back to the photos, grainy film can be the result of a lot of factors, mainly people not exposing correctly, people over developing or “forcing” film so that you can shoot with less light, or the use of high speed film for low light, those are exterior shots in the sun, so it was probably not “fast” film, or pushed film, it would probably be Kodachrome or Kodacolor X. Kodachrome is a colour reversal film, or slide film, it means you get a positive right after processing and it is meant to be projected via optical means, it can be printed but the process is different, it usually has higher contrast and more saturated colours, and also a really FINE GRAIN, also Kodachrome was invented in 1935.
This is Kodachrome in 1949, It doesn’t say the format, but considering its not blurry with all the moving objects it’s not a large format view camera (which have slow lenses and are not for action shots) It could be a 6 by 6 medium format but it’s not square, it probably is 35mm. I don’t think it’s Kodachrome because of the contrast and the saturation of the colours.
Then Kodacolor X was invented in the 1950′s as a mean to make colour photography available for the general public, before that you could only get colour by using slide film which was much more expensive than B&W so it was used mainly by professional photographers. Kodacolor X is what is known as a Colour print film, it produces a negative, which is only viewable after printing it, and it’s way more cheaper than slides, but still even those “amateur” films can get pretty nice results for example:
1968, it’s square so probably is a Rolleiflex TLR or other 6 by 6 camera. so not really a fair comparison, then maybe this one:
It’s 35mm because of the format, and you can see that the grain is more noticeable but not terrible, it looks like the pictures the OP posted. And Kodacolor X while not as cheap as B&W was pretty used by amateur photographers, and if it was a “special” occasion, I don’t know the last day before summer or something like that it is plausible the photographer used colour print film. Finally to conclude the pictures aren’t that great composition wise, sure they are not terrible, but they are not good, all the subjects are at the center, there is too much air in some subjects are cut, or from their backs, this totally makes sense as a photo club kid taking colour pictures of their friends because it was a special occasion, or just wanted to test the film. Hell I don’t know how many times I have gone to take pictures of empty streets and buildings just to test a camera/film combination, and now that’s the most expensive way of taking pictures.
I’m with @geekyastrophysicist on this one: there is no compelling reason to think those pics are fakes / not from the era stated. The grain and lens quality look very late ‘60s to me, comparing them to slides my Dad took around that time. Judging from the bokeh (and assuming 35mm!), a lot of the shots are at around f/4 which isn’t super-huge-aperture for back then.
To me, the colours look classic, creamy Kodachrome. They have that magic. There’s a reason Simon & Garfunkel wrote a song about it.
I’m also slightly puzzled by the claims that modern digital tech is so much better than older tech. The truth is, digital imaging has been trying to equal film since the very first blocky images. We’ve had the megapixel race and now we’re in the dynamic bandwidth race. I took the below shot with a (then) very expensive digital camera and prime lens:
But I was still trying to re-create the look of classic film photography, the warmth and colour gamut.
Which is why a lot of photographers just simply cut out all the fuss and use film cameras with film when they want a film look. Neither digital nor film are ‘better,’ it’s a question of what best fits what you want to do.
Friendly neighbourhood librarian here with a source!
These photos were taken in 1969 for LIFE Magazine by professional photographer Arthur Schatz, many (but not all) at Beverly Hills High School in Southern California. Time Magazine ran a retrospective of the photo series a few years ago called Feelin’ Groovy: High School Fashion, 1969.
The girl in the headband is named Rosemary Shoong, and she apparently made the outfit herself (that being said, it’s described here as a “leather Indian dress” by which they mean Native, and I’m not sure if she herself was part native or not, so it may or not be appropriated). A few of the other girls are named, but not all of them.
My favourite image though, isn’t of one of the students, but rather of the teacher, Sandy Brockman:
When your best friend tells you all she had for breakfast Was a packet of Splenda and a Diet Coke, And she tells you that she’ll stop after she loses five more pounds, Do not believe her. Tell her mother. It does not matter how angry your friend gets. The pain of that will always be preferable to the pain Of seeing your best friend in four years Weighing as much as she does now Half-dead in the hospital.
When your father sneaks into your bed in the dead of the night, And he tells you that this is how fathers love their daughters, Do not believe him. Tell your English teacher. She will have read millions of stories of girls like you. There is a one in six chance that she will be a girl like you. There is a five in six chance that she will know what to say to you. There is a six in six chance that she will help you.
When your veins whisper to you in the moonlight And say that there are so many nightmares inside you That could be free If you would just open your arms, Do not believe them. Tell your school’s guidance counselor, No matter how scared you are Because whispers are liars, And opening your arms will only open the passage For more nightmares to climb in.
And when the therapists say that you are better, Totally better, And you don’t need to worry about the sadness again, Do not believe them. Always be cautious, because sadness has a way Of sneaking up on you When you’re not looking. Be careful. Be careful.
Weirdly anti-millennial articles have scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard that they are now two feet down into the topsoil
its so wild like “this generation with no fucking money is learning to prioritize essentials” and all these chucklefucks can write is advertisements for these companies
at least our jeans won’t tear at the seams after two washes
FUCK FABRIC SOFTENER IT’S UTTERLY POINTLESS
AND FUCK DRYER SHEETS LITERALLY NOBODY EVER HAS ENOUGH OF A PROBLEM WITH STATIC TO WARRANT PAYING OUT THE ASS FOR THAT SHIT
DO YOU WANT CLEAN CLOTHES? YOU DON’T EVEN NEED TO BUY FUCKING DETERGENT JUST MAKE YOUR OWN* IT’S SO GODDAMN EASY AND 80X CHEAPER
FUCK THE ENTIRE LAUNDRY INDUSTRY
*Fuck The Entire Laundry Industry Recipe
1 cup Washing Soda (not Baking Soda. Different things.)
1 cup Borax (not Boric Acid. Also a different thing.)
½ cup – 1 cup grated bar soap (you can use literally anything. I often use Ivory because it’s easy to get and I find it works well, a lot of people like Fels-Naptha, which is an actual laundry bar. Some people use Dr. Bronner’s. Really does not fucking matter.)
After grating your soap, combine all ingredients. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Use maybe a ¼ cup per load.
^^^ I’ve done this for years now and it works as well as any store bought detergent
WHAT Thank you, tumblr user awfullydull! Your URL does no justice to the good advice you give!
Also you can MAKE your own washing soda very VERY cheaply.
Step one: acquire $5 bag of baking soda from Costco.
Step two: lay that motherfucking baking soda out on a baking tray.
Step three: bake the baking soda on a tray in an oven at 400° for 1 hour (to make the moisture evaporate, leaving washing soda)
Step four: revel in how easy and cheap it is to make your own washing soda, and maybe take a moment to be angry that the industry upcharges the fuck out of something that is so easy to make.
I see some of y’all complaining about static and/or wanting nice smelling laundry. Go to a craft store, find 100% wool yarn balls. If it doesn’t come in a ball, ask an employee to make it into a tight ball for you. Wash in the washing machine to make it felted. Remove from washer, add a few drops of essential oil to the ball, allow to seep in. Dry with clothing. Doesn’t need to be rewashed ever, and if it stops smelling, add few more drops of essential oil. Bam, reusable dryer sheets.
I love this post so much it’s filled with helpful advice, hatred, saving money, and fucking the system all in one
General strikes are a big deal. They need organization, mass support, an agreed-upon list of demands, related demonstrations, etc. It’s not as easy as 10k people across the country at multiple different jobs not showing up – despite what you think, that will be seen as 10k independent occurrences and will result in several thousand firings for no call/no shows with no other notice paid. Even if this wildcat general strike gets enough traction to be seen as an actual threat (which is unlikely as just a viral tumblr post), the government will simply respond with arrests and brutality as they have in the past, and no part of this post prepares people for that
And don’t just decide to do it on your own – talk to your coworkers, get in touch with local unions and your IWW branch, talk to local chapters of climate activism groups like Rising Tide, 350.org, and Transition Towns to organize concurrent demonstrations and actions, and spread the word as much as you can so we can get some steam behind this in the 2 months we have to prepare
“Fuck Work Day” would probably just make things worse while scaring people off from participating in the real coordinated action less than a month later
misterjazzmaster 