Question, Jim: How much influence do you have over what AI generates? For the most part, I think the colorization is quite good. There are still hints of blue at the extremities (fingertips, toes) and my first reaction to the skin tones was that it was too "bright." The overall feeling is that the lighting is more subdued than the skin tones would suggest (although there is clear shadowing of the model). If the skin tones were measured on a scale of ten I might cut it back to nine.

As always, these are only my opinions. You and others might disagree, and I'm okay with that. Thanks as always for your great photos and hard work!

An interesting juxtaposing of techniques, Jim. I'll start with the depth of field. The blurred background is almost a distraction in the original, but is rendered more like bokeh in the hand-colored (I assume the second photo). The AI version (the third) handles it slightly differently and once again appears a bit bothersome to me. The color rendering in the AI version is preferable to me, as the hand-colored version has almost an artificial tint to it. Then, there is the matter of the model's right arm: Into what is she putting her arm? The hand-colored version has a material color almost identical to the skin tones, but the AI version isn't much better. Is it material? I would guess so, but it almost comes across as rock, which would be odd, indeed.

Please don't think I'm criticizing. You always invite comments, so these are just mine. I applaud your efforts, both then and now!

Really? I saw the blue immediately. Mostly on the extremities, but there's a hint of it in shadowy areas, too.

Nice work, as always, Jim. I note that you are merely colorizing the photos and not trying to correct any issues with the original (in this case, there appear to be some reflections, or "streaks" on the model's upper leg in both versions). I like that!

I spent nearly my entire adult life working in the computer software field and AI is simply a logical next step. And it's only as good as the programmers who write it. An earlier concept was known as "machine learning." Unlike many, I don't find it threatening. It is, after all, only as good as the people who wrote it.

It isn't perfect. I've seen plenty of examples of rendered images that, while impressive, aren't real-looking. Nearly all photo editing software from the "big guys" (Adobe, Luminar, ON1) are using AI to enhance images. But keep in mind that the control is still under human management.

Jim, your images are yours, not AI's. You are using AI as a photo-enhancement tool, and I see nothing wrong with that. If you had used AI to create images out of whole cloth, I think many of us would complain that it isn't "photography" (and strictly speaking, it isn't. "Photography" = "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)" - Webster).

Your images you've posted here have shown your progress in using new tools and capabilities. I give you much credit for that!

To misquote Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison), in My Fair Lady, "I think he's got it. By George, I think he's got it!"

Nice work, Jim!

By golly Jim, you're getting pretty darn good at this! @jaymatt has a point about the dark shadowed leg, but honestly, I didn't notice it until he brought it up. Well done!

Nice work, Jim! Your examples demonstrate that it's not a piece of cake colorizing old B&W photos. Overall, I think you've hit the mark, except for some washing out of the flesh tone on the outstretched leg. Once again, I'm picking nits -- I am in awe of the transformations you've been able to make. The coloring and pattern of the dress is simply phenomenal! Is that the way you remember it, or are you taking license with the coloring?

Please accept my comments in the way they are given: Too often, we seek perfection in the photos we take, and this is nearly impossible to achieve. You are working with fifty year-old images (negatives?), and the quality of old images suffer from the ravages of time. You have done remarkable work. Kudos!

OK, I'm just going to disagree slightly. And this is entirely a minor nit, and is my personal perspective: The model appears sunburned in places. Now, that may very well have been the case, but I almost think the skin tones are slightly, darkly, unrealistic. It's a matter of degree, of course. On a scale of 100, I'd probably tone it down just one or two notches. Otherwise, a fantastic photo -- even the original B&W!

I'm seeing marked improvement in your colorizing efforts, Jim! I'd be hard pressed to offer any suggestions for correction in this photo, if realism is your goal. There is some hint in my mind that this is an altered photo (perhaps the lighting on the model's upper torso), but that might be that I saw the B&W photo first. Nice work!

Well, now this is excellent! The flesh tones are very realistic! You have to look twice to see it's been colorized. Nice work, Jim!

I never bonded with Time Machine. Intellectually, I like it for what it was designed to do, but the interface never sat well with me. I now use the {free} FreeFileSync (https://freefilesync.org/), which can synchronize folders as well as simply make backups. There are versions for Mac, Windows and Linux, so the interface isn't exactly "Mac-like," but usage is pretty clear and the program is actively supported.

Most of the time I simply "enhance" a photo, adjusting shadows and contrast give it the memory I saw when I shot it. There are some exceptions, of course. I really like viewing well done real estate photography, because even though you know the image has been staged, lighted, and shot in the most favorable way, the final image still does not shout out, "EDITED" in the most obvious way.

That you reference the app "Photos," I sense the computer you're using is an Apple, correct? If so, Apple includes an app called "Image Capture" that should allow you to select the photos on your phone and download them to a folder on your computer of your choice. From there you can use whatever editing program you wish. I do not use Samsung phones, so YMMV.

Jim, I applaud your efforts, and appreciate both the original B&W and the colorized versions. I do have a question, though: It seems to me the skin tones in the colorized versions appear somewhat "muted," if you know what I mean. I sense this affect in some of the other areas as well (the wood, in this photo's case). Is this an intentional "softening" on your part, or an error of perception on my part? What would happen if you added more color and/or contrast to your photo?