Colorized Rare Historical Photos
Dec 28, 2014 05:11:22 #
Dec 28, 2014 05:40:17 #
Dec 28, 2014 06:33:33 #
abc1234 wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=d6d9d5385aee
Beautiful. It makes a difference have some color in them.
Dec 29, 2014 06:52:35 #
Ted Turner's colorized movies generally sucked. If it were practical to do a whole movie with the skill displayed in these still photos, colorization wouldn't be such a dirty word
Dec 29, 2014 10:10:35 #
Dec 29, 2014 14:44:16 #
Really good, although I would like to see them as a slide show where I could study some of them longer.
Considering the changes in technology since Turner had those movies colorized is like complaining that a 1914 Model T isn't a 2014 Lincoln Navigator.
Considering the changes in technology since Turner had those movies colorized is like complaining that a 1914 Model T isn't a 2014 Lincoln Navigator.
Dec 29, 2014 15:13:04 #
Dec 29, 2014 23:20:58 #
I remember when this was going on, and many people thought the world was ending. But the reality was that the colorization was done on video, so the original movies were not harmed.
At the time I, and many others working in the medium, (movies &/or stills), were concerned. We thought that the b/w pictures, were more artistic than color.
The prevailing thought was that "color was distracting from the content", "color showed the people, (product) but b/w showed the soul", and, "shades of gray were artistic, and color was just common".
When color became available, via Kodak --1934 approx., (Ektachrome / kodachrome) August and Louis Lumiere brothers came up with Autochromes -- 1904 approx.
(made w/ potato starch on glass) ., and Daguerreotypes were handcolored, 1839-1865 approx., it became the Lingua Franca of the industry.
As time has gone by, I realized that the "old masters" all painted in color, since they (and their audience) all viewed in color. They had the choice to paint in any color or non color as they wished. Being accepted and applauded by their audience was paramount. Nobody wanted to be a "starving artist".
Since then, where do you see color, an ads, newspapers, magazines, on your computer, where? Almost never -- except to be noticed, to be different, to sell a product. It's become a historical footnote in imaging. (photography, movies).
Remember, although b/w is almost an antique, it, (b/w film) in the most archival medium in the imaging industry. I had a girl ask me to shoot her wedding on a digital format. (this was when digital was just becoming accepted) I asked her if she wanted the pictures to be archival, and be viewable for decades? and she said: of course I do. I told her to have the wedding shot on Film. especially on B/W film. Another consideration, In the decades ahead, will the machinery be available to view our digital photos/movies? , can we read 3 3/4", 5 1/2" floppy disks? how about other formats, micro cassettes, regular cassettes, etc?
I know of several Hollywood Producers and Imaging professionals, who when they "save" a product they want,
(a film or movie) they also get 2 readers for the specific medium to put in storage with the product to be saved and viewed. Previously, the machines to view the "images" are no longer available. Which means, no matter the historical relevance or value
At the time I, and many others working in the medium, (movies &/or stills), were concerned. We thought that the b/w pictures, were more artistic than color.
The prevailing thought was that "color was distracting from the content", "color showed the people, (product) but b/w showed the soul", and, "shades of gray were artistic, and color was just common".
When color became available, via Kodak --1934 approx., (Ektachrome / kodachrome) August and Louis Lumiere brothers came up with Autochromes -- 1904 approx.
(made w/ potato starch on glass) ., and Daguerreotypes were handcolored, 1839-1865 approx., it became the Lingua Franca of the industry.
As time has gone by, I realized that the "old masters" all painted in color, since they (and their audience) all viewed in color. They had the choice to paint in any color or non color as they wished. Being accepted and applauded by their audience was paramount. Nobody wanted to be a "starving artist".
Since then, where do you see color, an ads, newspapers, magazines, on your computer, where? Almost never -- except to be noticed, to be different, to sell a product. It's become a historical footnote in imaging. (photography, movies).
Remember, although b/w is almost an antique, it, (b/w film) in the most archival medium in the imaging industry. I had a girl ask me to shoot her wedding on a digital format. (this was when digital was just becoming accepted) I asked her if she wanted the pictures to be archival, and be viewable for decades? and she said: of course I do. I told her to have the wedding shot on Film. especially on B/W film. Another consideration, In the decades ahead, will the machinery be available to view our digital photos/movies? , can we read 3 3/4", 5 1/2" floppy disks? how about other formats, micro cassettes, regular cassettes, etc?
I know of several Hollywood Producers and Imaging professionals, who when they "save" a product they want,
(a film or movie) they also get 2 readers for the specific medium to put in storage with the product to be saved and viewed. Previously, the machines to view the "images" are no longer available. Which means, no matter the historical relevance or value
Dec 29, 2014 23:46:33 #
Sorry, I hit the wrong button, nevertheless:
NO matter the historical relevance, probably less than 5 % of all images, (still or moving) will survive into the next three or four decades. And the means to view them aren't being saved -- yet.
The People Who Know, say that we will always be able to look at a negative or film positives and see the images, with or without a manufactured viewer.
They say computers will make paper obsolete!
BAAH HUMBUG, ( it is the season is it not?)
Statistically, If your computer has not crashed in the last four years, there is one in four chance it will this year. Also, a hard drive is NOT a hard copy. Backup, backup, backup. "duplicate, copy, migrate, save".
I save all my pix on my flash drives, never reformat. It's one of the ways I save my images, & on hard drives (external and internal), websites, the cloud. How are you saving your images? any NEW ideas? RSVP.
NO matter the historical relevance, probably less than 5 % of all images, (still or moving) will survive into the next three or four decades. And the means to view them aren't being saved -- yet.
The People Who Know, say that we will always be able to look at a negative or film positives and see the images, with or without a manufactured viewer.
They say computers will make paper obsolete!
BAAH HUMBUG, ( it is the season is it not?)
Statistically, If your computer has not crashed in the last four years, there is one in four chance it will this year. Also, a hard drive is NOT a hard copy. Backup, backup, backup. "duplicate, copy, migrate, save".
I save all my pix on my flash drives, never reformat. It's one of the ways I save my images, & on hard drives (external and internal), websites, the cloud. How are you saving your images? any NEW ideas? RSVP.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.