Get better friends

>>4366285
>in 240p on VHS
VHS is 480i.

File: 7aa1bc9830ae647781d9846a1(...).jpg (158 KB, 476x640)

158 KB JPG

>>4366285
>1992
Like many things depicted in the Simpsons, this kind of slide show is more characteristic of the writers' boomer childhoods, than of the era they were writing in. It was obvious to audiences at the time, an acceptable break from reality that everybody just understood, and extremely common in tv and movies of that era.
The peak of the home slide show was the 70s. When VHS killed off 8mm home movies, home users people also quit bothering with slides. The camcorder was the thing.
Slide film continued in professional use until replaced by digital, but this was largely irrelevant in the home.

it is 1994 nz top ten hits
mariah carey and some nigger is singing
song is actually good

>>4366325
Slide projectors for photos, VHS for video coexsisted for a long time

>>4366285
Life was never like this. Everyone hated the slideshows. Just text them or link your flickr.

File: f91a25e19cde388013712cc65(...).jpg (38 KB, 1080x420)

38 KB JPG

>>4366341
Maybe they just didn't like your slides

N

I just found a playboy and some smokes in the woods, get your BMX and follow me.

>>4366366
Everyone always hated the slides. Its why we invented imessage and the internet.
>another fucked up photo by dad
>can i leave i want to check usenet
>-the future inventor of the iphone camera

>>4366385
>> the future inventor of the iphone camera

And went on to make content so abundant that nobody engages with it anymore and everything in life seems meaningless

>>4366398
Man, even the word "content" tells the tale of modern media. We don't even refer to movies, music, television, it's all just "content". Something you fill a vessel with. No soul, no artistic vision, nothing of value to say, just filling up the slop tube that the consumer paid for.

>>4366574
content is marketing speak that trickled into the main stream. we're a consoomerist cattle society.

Two things:
>the novelty of seeing a photograph has been completely worn down by the internet.
Before when everyone was online constantly (like in the early 90s) seeing a photo only took place in scenarios like this, in a photo album or a magazine. Making people more willing to engage with the photos

>Those photos were film.
Film is just a more emotionally engaging medium than digital.

buy a cheap photo printer like the canon selphy, only print max 24 photos per occasion.

scarcity makes value

>>4366695
consumoorist

>>4366285
you have to be over 18 to post here

>>4366761
I'm in my 30s but I don't even understand why you are saying this? What does this have to do with analog slide projectors?

>>4366709
> Film is just a more emotionally engaging medium than digital.

retvrn

>>4366709
>>4366832
Film was only more engaging because you had nothing else. Optical printing was also alive and well with a wide variety of papers. You could get true resolution prints if someone had a good enough enlarger and knew how to use it. Low ISO 35mm film, in these conditions, would outperform digital cameras at everything but pushing and shadow DR (which few people needed, because most photography was just done outside or with flash) until the release of the d800 and 5div, which finally had enough resolution to consistently smash even the best 35mm film stocks outside of useless B&W tech films. By the time digital cameras hit 50mp, film was niche, almost no one shot anything bigger than 645. It didn't even matter that 100mp medium format came out and consistently smashed 6x7, 6x9 and sometimes 4x5, because that represents almost no people.

Today you shoot 36 street signs on overexposed portra and pay some fuck to scan them with an 8 bit CCD shitter. They look like old shit and still mean nothing. They're just jpegs you post on facebook and then leave on a backup drive.

if you want to bring those old days back, print your digital photos now that digital can finally look as good or better than film.

>>4366830
>>4366333
>>4366285
Stop runnning your mouth about times you never experienced. Nobody was showing slide shows of their vacations in 1992 you insufferable faggot. Vaction slides were a thing in the 1960s into the 1970s. Everyone had photo albums from the late 1970s onward.
>slides and video coexisted for a long time
Bullshit you insufferable faggot.

>>4368421
I had a slide projector and shot slide film in the 90s, but I was well aware I was *only* doing it as a hobby and no one else I knew still had one at that time. People in my hobby (trainwatching) all shot slides because slides were still the preferred medium for sending your pics in for printing in magazines. This in spite of slide film being more expensive, harder expose correctly, and slower than the available negative films. No normal people shot slides in the 90s, it was almost as niche as film is now.
I can't recall *ever* attending a family vacation slide show like the one on the Simpsons. This was simply not a thing anymore by then.

>>4368421
Slides were still being used into the 2000s. Especially professionally. If you wanted to submit photos for real use they wanted a slide, your original, because negatives did not have consistent color.

>>4368523
>Slides were still being used into the 2000s. Especially professionally.
That's the key word - professionally. Normal people just got 4x6 prints and put them in photo albums.
There's a ton of anons here that were at least kids if not teens in the 90s, and if anyone has any memory of a Simpsons style normie home slide show taking place with any regularity at any time later than the early 80s, I'd like to see hear.

>>4368611
me. my dad had an om1 and shot a fuckton of kodachrome. all of the photos were bad. the end.

>>4366285
>be digital chad
>actually practice and get gud
>buy 17” photo printer
>bring huge photo albums to family events
>leave on table for everyone to view at their leisure
>running late and don’t do it one time
>”anon where are your photos?”
>”anon! I wanted cousin to see them!”
>”anon get out your albums “
>”damn anon I wanted to see your latest work”
Life is good

>>4368523
Until about 2003, yes. Negs were the goto for wedding photography because of dynamic range. But for publications E6 was expected.

But when digital hit, it hit fast and hard. There were so many good ebay deals on film kits by the late 2000s, I regret not taking better advantage of them.

>>4368518
As the other anon said for publication it was all about color. With slides the graphic designers and prepress guys had a reference. Slides also generally scanned better, although a really good scan operator could get the best out of both.

>>4366709
>like in the early 90s
You damn well should know back in those days a picture took a shit ton of time to load, everyone was prohibited from using the phone when i was downloading bitching sports car pictures

>>4368611
>I'd like to see hear
An uncle plugged his point n' shoot into the TV with that cable nobody used from the box from the video out, did a slide on how much of a poorfag his fruit-vending brother-in-law looked on the side of a highway

>>4366709
I remember calling youtube some fake shit when people told me I could watch videos without downloading them