See how the photographer shot this gloriously green photo so that there were a lot of blurry leaves close to the lens that makes the right quarter of the photo into a relatively low-contrast sea of light green? That works really well for laying type over and still having it be legible without having to stick it into some clunky box. So I’m wondering: did the photographer set out to take a photo like this with the planned text layout in mind? Or did the designer just pick one that they realized would work from a set of press photos? Was an airbrush or something used to make the blurry area work even better for the text? Dealing with all this stuff in the Age of Photoshop is trivial, but I want to know how this was done in 1970, with everything hand-set on those big layout boards. Anyway, good work, unnamed designer. I see you. We used 8×10 view cameras that exposed one 8×10 inch sheet of film at a time. The large film size gave the best quality for print reproduction. Here’s an example of one: https://www.wetplatedreams.com/deardorff-8×10-field-camera When we had a layout from the designer, we would take a thin sheet of 8×10 clear plastic and draw the outside edges of the layout on the plastic with a grease pencil, which could be wiped off if you made a mistake, or the layout changed. If the final ad was to be printed larger than 8×10, we’d scale it down with a proportion wheel. Some ads were more exact in the placing of the product and type than others. Once we had the ad’s border drawn, the rest of the elements in the ad could be drawn in to their specific locations on the ad. This Firebird ad is pretty simple- draw a box for the car, and a box for the type. Again, we’d scale them down proportionally if needed. Then we’d tape the outer edges of the plastic sheet on the ground glass on the back of the camera. That’s the piece on the Deardorff camera with the grid on it. When you placed the camera on the set, you’d compose the photo and line up the box for the car on the car, since it’s the main subject. Then you’d check the box where the type is supposed to be placed and make sure that there’s nothing in it that might blend in with the type and make it difficult to read. Again, this is a simple layout, but the same principals apply with something more complicated. That’s how we did it! As far as the photo… keep in mind that this is for the Pontiac Division of General Motors, so they recognize the importance of their advertising, and they’re willing to spend money on it. There were car photographers in Detroit with large studios that could handle this, or they could rent a sound stage if needed. When you’re in a studio, you have total control over the lighting. You’d have separate lights for the car and the house & trees to make the car look as good as possible. Set designers could build a phony house facade and bring in trees. It’s the same as a movie set. Another possibility is a rear projection screen for the house and trees in front of it. I suspect the car was photographed in a studio because the reflections in the wheels, the rear bumper, and stainless trim under the door and around the windows is just right. Or those could have been retouched in later. If it was done on location they may have used large cinematography lights on the car and the tree just behind it, then retouched the shiny bits later. The green glow may have been airbrushed in later, maybe on a dye transfer print. It’s so indistinct it may not have been leaves dangled in front of the lens. If you want to see how the pros did it back in the day, get the book “Boulevard Photographic” by Jim Williams. It’s the story, with many great photos, of the best car photographers in the business who literally invented many great techniques. All that said, I’m guessing that what we’re seeing in this particular ad is the effect of some sort of dodge/burn technique in the development process — Which also reminds of the days when I had to worry about sending “camera-ready” files to production. Anyway, thanks for posting — I love this sort of thing. So many questions, so little time. But entirely possible that this was shot in studio and comped together later. Car does look cut out. But as I experienced in my limited car shooting days, it seems likely done in location and in camera. Personally i’m going 80/20 on the blur being natural.It would have only taken a few minutes to set up close to a branch. If it was dodged and burned or spray touchup i dont think they would have left a dark part under half of the wording. The car i’m not so sure about.It looks a little too sharp to not be a cut and paste,but all other clues point to it being real.Light and shadows seem to be consistent across the image First, any photographer worth their salt, and they’d have to be to get this account, would have given the art director plenty and plenty of options for copy: left, right, top, and bottom. Landscape and portrait set ups, a few with room at the top for the title of a magazine. This all might well have been in the brief from the art director. There’s every chance this photo would be used for different purposes in different markets and different types of publications. Hundreds and hundreds of frames to get a handful of “hero shots.” That wouldn’t have been hard in this case, though, because this car is standing still. The driver looks sporty, but the wheels aren’t moving, and there’s no hint of exhaust. I like the way the car is off center and looks like it’s driving off the page, leaving everything behind it. It’s also driving to the left, opposite to how we read, which adds a little more tension. I think it most likely the color was just hand tinted – the car might have been beige to start with. There’s a chance the blur on the right and top center are leaves very close in the foreground, but I’m not sure. This is a jpg of a scan of an offset print of a copy of a chrome (it would have been shot on slide film, not negative) so I can’t tell what’s blur or just artifact at this point. I was also a photo director at a small newspaper for a while. As mentioned, the page would have been layed out and “pasted up,” probably using hot wax we had to keep melted for use. Once the page was made up, it would have been shot with a giant machine called a “stat camera” used to make the printing plates. There’s even a bit of a chance that the picture of the car was cut out and placed on top of a background image. Again, not a good piece to work off of here. Photoshop? When it came out I paid $1,000 for ONE extra Gb of RAM to run it, probably on a 25 mHz processor, can’t remember. I was HOT stuff for the day. You kids with your PS 11s and such wouldn’t know the struggle. I have 400 rolls of slide film in my freezer: anyone need some? People are awesome with Photoshop, but a whole bunch of professionals used to be able to do really amazing stuff with just hardcopies. Graphic Design was a whole other situation. The college had been teaching this course for a number of years and had a very comprehensive program in place . . . for 1970-80. They were teaching a dying art. Afore mentioned work-up boards, clip art, Apple computers from their very early days and a group of teachers who had a wealth of knowledge. As part of my desire to excel I spent nearly a thousand bucks on a Canon digital camera. It was the cat’s meow. The instructors, to the last person, swore that there was no way digital cameras would replace 35mm film. Finally, I got the most senior of the teachers to actually look at the results. He was blown away! Well, the graphic design degree was not worth much but working as a tech writer netted me some serious money for a couple of years before the VA and SS decided that I was seriously disabled and started sending checks. A short time later, I pulled the plug and retired completely. Ah, what might have been. You could probably light the driver selectively to balance them with the car exterior — from what I’ve read, small press-style strobe heads taped to the dash or door panels were very popular at least in location car photography back then — but on top of compounding the setup difficulty by adding more lights, I’d imagine compositing the driver in would have given the art director options if the ad needed to be changed to appeal to a different demographic. …Jason, is this a secret confession that the Business Suit Trappers skit on Kids in the Hall was inspired by your early office life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbfA5L3YAO0 Amazing in hindsite that what would take sometimes days to layout can be done in minutes now. Wait, was there something about graphic design in here? This design is a beautiful shape. Each “improvement” must have been a dagger to the heart of the original designer. I would like to find a clean 8 cylinder 1970 Firebird that looks just like Rockford’s. *NOT a limo: it has 8 doors & 4 rows of seating.
