I have always preferred photos in color. Black and white are fine, but except for looking for dimensioning detail, I would not use it.

A number of years ago, I had cataracts and did not realize how much color perception I had lost. UNTIL I had cataract surgery. Even though they changed my vision from 20/400 and 20/600 to 20/25 and 20/20, I was ecstatic about how vivid the colors really were.

As to the content of the photos, we have to realize the photos captured reality and the colorized photos simply brought it out better, for me anyhow. If we don't learn from history, we seriously risk repeating it.

Collodion and wet Collodion process was not color sensitive as was the later emulsions. So a B&W image from the era may not be accurate to the color of the images from that time. The early silver gelatin emulsions of early films were not vary sensitive in the red end of the spectrum either and much of the early film emulsions were in the sensitivity range of 3200K, thus Super Pancro Press, type B was favored by landscape photographer such as Ansel Adams who intentionally did not correct the material to daylight illumination because the resulting images were more to his (their) liking for rendering in the band areas for B&W (Adams purchased vast quantities of Super Pancro Press, Type B as Kodak was fazing it out for the more color accurate red sensitive balanced B&W film emulsions.).

So, what was a modern emulsion that was close to Collodion films? Kodak Duplicating Film would be a good film example. It was blue sensitive, with a vary slight green sensitivity and no sensitivity in the red region. If you wanted to make an image that showed freckles strongly, this was the film for the job. It would display freckles so strongly that freckles that were not seen by normal illumination to a viewer were seen and in abundance. This is why old portraits of the time appear so 'ruddy' as to skin tone. The daylight speed of this film is stated by Kodak as about 8 to 12 ISO and that is quite accurate, a little more sensitive than Collodion emulsions of the time.

One last item, war photographer only traveled with large bodies of troops. Collodion is a necessary material for medical purposes of the time, so a photographers wagon was more desirable to capture and raid by both sides than any other supply. It was a dangerous profession to be in during war. Not to mention the volatile nature of the materials used in making the emulsions.





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

Following...

One is not necessarily better than the other at all times. They are different media. They communicate different things differently. War photos in color can be more impactful, but when you are trying to rally support for a war effort (think WWII), B&W keeps people on a different mental focus (i.e.; winning).

B&W communicates with shape, line, form, contrast, moment, subject, and pure composition. Like radio news, it focuses our attention on the idea of the subject.

Color communicates emotion, immediately. Stage lighting designers use the entire palette of colors to set moods for scenes in a play, or songs in a concert. When the nightly TV news began to show color film reports from Vietnam back in the 1960s, many Americans quickly got queasy about the war.