I Was So Impressed With These Historical Photos I Wanted To Share

[shikano53]

A friend sent me this link of famous photos that have been colorized, and enhanced. Photos dating back to the very beginning of photography. I thought they were amazing. There is one picture of a group of indigenous people of Sweden. One is smoking a pipe. Moderator, if this is in the wrong area my apologies. Please move if necessary.
I wish the picture of Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) was of him with his ever present pipe but it isn't. Anyway, the slide show is 12 minutes long. I thought it was like looking backwards in time at photos that looked like they were taken today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dov50PAsj5M&feature=player_embedded

 

[carolinachurchwarden]

Nikola Tesla....my man! Very interesting little roll there. Love looking at pictures from history and the way they've managed to add color just brings them to life.

 

[warren]

In my opinion, colorizing a dead artist's work is shameful. Plus, colorizing makes a well constructed black and white photo flat, lifeless. The technician's idea of proper skin tone, eye color, etc. is simply his impression of what he considers to be "real." But, if the print is in public domain or, rights have been assigned, computers can be used to generate a separate reality I suppose.

 

[smittyd]

Great thread thanks for sharing . I had no idea some of those photos could have been taken so long ago.

 

[shikano53]

Warren, I don't think there is anything shameful at all. I think that being able to more vividly see photos from our collective past brought forward with clarity is truly of great value, even if perhaps the colors aren't perfect.

Give it a few more years though with advancing technology and I'm sure fuller and richer definition will be well within our (there) grasp.

I understand and respect your point of view from a professional photographer's perspective.

Besides; I'm color blind Mawahhhha ha! :clap:

 

[seacaptain]

Plus, colorizing makes a well constructed black and white photo flat, lifeless.

Sometimes, depends on the skill of the person (computer) doing it. Some of these are like that, some are quiet good. Nothing wrong with doing this since you're not destroying the original.

 

[seacaptain]

There is one picture of a group of indigenous people of Sweden.

In 50 years, the current Swedes will be called indigenous by the people who are conquering the land today.

 

[sablebrush52]

I always find these interesting and occasionally enjoyable. A few of the early colorized images are reasonably successful, most are less so, looking more like the sort of tinting that was done to post cards a hundred or more years ago.
Certainly colorizing a B&W image changes it, some think violates it, and it does violate it. To colorize, the contrast range needs to be reduced or no color can be introduced into the shadows or the highlights. The result is much flatter than the original. So the work that the photographer put in to make that image has been screwed with. Also, compared to early color photography from around the late 19th through early 20th century, the colorizing is pretty bland. People unfamiliar with early color photography might be surprised at how good it actually could be.
For those with a curiosity to see how things might have looked in color, and I stress "might", colorized photographs provide an option. To me, they're interesting curiosities, generally worse than the B&W sources. But once in a while they succeed in piercing that veil.

 

[seldom]

Altering historical photographs makes me a bit uneasy. Take these examples: https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/the-case-of-missing-cigarettes/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7828755/Winston-Churchills-cigar-airbrushed-from-picture.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_bowdlerization

 

[shikano53]

seldom,

It's rewriting history for sure in the examples you shared. I certainly understand the concern and the impact it could have on the social fabric of our present day.

My only reason for posting the link was because I enjoyed the colorized version of the photos, nothing more. As mentioned, I'm color blind which means I don't see the subtle nuances everyone else, especially people with any photographic skill, would see. I wish I did. But I do appreciate the colors I am capable of seeing.

 

[saltedplug]

B&W has a depth of tonal representation that color cannot equal. I prefer it. When I attempted photography, which attempt failed due to its cost, I took a number of rolls of Kodak Panatomic X-32 ASA. Fantastic results.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Most of those photos aren't composed works of art, but documentary in style and presumably, intent. In many cases color adds more than it takes away, unless done poorly, as in the bullfighting photo.
There are some exceptions in that collection, notably the portrait of Einstein, and a few other portraits of individuals, but for over 90% they are improved as documentation of what life was like over a hundred years ago. That the originals haven't been altered in anyway takes away any semblance of violation.