Colorizing Software (Page 2): Additionally, a Colorize command was added to PSE 2020 - the version that preceded PSE 2021. Not sure how good it does relative to others. I am pretty...

don26812 Loc: South Bay of Los Angeles, CA

Additionally, a Colorize command was added to PSE 2020 - the version that preceded PSE 2021. Not sure how good it does relative to others. I am pretty sure it uses Adobe's Sensei (AI).

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

don26812 wrote:

Additionally, a Colorize command was added to PSE 2020 - the version that preceded PSE 2021. Not sure how good it does relative to others. I am pretty sure it uses Adobe's Sensei (AI).

Well, maybe it is time for me to upgrade. I noticed PSE 2021 is $70 at Amazon.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

lorvey wrote:

I've tried MyHeritage. It does a great job, but a... (show quote)

It really depends on what you are gonna do with it as to the frequency of use, how you are going to use it, your expectations and your budget.

In my own case, my studio business does quite a bit of photo-restoration. Before digital, we used a lot of airbrush, hand colouring among other manual techniques. Nowadays, we do most of it digitally. I try to recreate damaged, faded or as-is copied images as authentically as possible in a style or look that would have been done in the era of the original image. The "My Heritage" look is reminiscent of the hand-tinting and transparent oil colouring that was popular from 1930 through the early 1960 and in a few cases, I have seen applied prints made much earlier than those dates. The manual method I am referring to involved making a sepia time monochromatic print and then applying transparent oil paints- like the ones popularized by Marshalls. In the 1940s and 1950, studios employed retouched and colorists that specialized in these treatments. Some almost rivalled nature colour photography of the era and some -well- kinda look like colour pints and that's the look of the Heritage versions. Back in those days, many portrait studios were reluctant to sell colour prints, especially in larger display sizes because of their more readily and frequent possibility of fading. Well-processed sepia-toned prints with oil colouring are very long-lasting. The ones we get to restore are usually physically damaged due to careless storage or water or fire/smoke damage but not faded. So...in my case, 12 bucks per month is a small fee to pay for the amount of time saved in colouring these kinds of prints. It can be used as a stand-alone process or just be used as an intermediate step in a more detailed technique.

Other than business, I love to discover, restore, and display old family portraits for our home. We have a family wall with both current and old images. Every now and again a distant relative or 3rd cousin comes up with a priceless image that I can fix-up, colourize and display.

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

It really depends on what you are gonna do with it as to the frequency of use, how you are going to use it, your expectations and your budget.

In my own case, my studio business does quite a bit of photo-restoration. Before digital, we used a lot of airbrush, hand colouring among other manual techniques. Nowadays, we do most of it digitally. I try to recreate damaged, faded or as-is copied images as authentically as possible in a style or look that would have been done in the era of the original image. The "My Heritage" look is reminiscent of the hand-tinting and transparent oil colouring that was popular from 1930 through the early 1960 and in a few cases, I have seen applied prints made much earlier than those dates. The manual method I am referring to involved making a sepia time monochromatic print and then applying transparent oil paints- like the ones popularized by Marshalls. In the 1940s and 1950, studios employed retouched and colorists that specialized in these treatments. Some almost rivalled nature colour photography of the era and some -well- kinda look like colour pints and that's the look of the Heritage versions. Back in those days, many portrait studios were reluctant to sell colour prints, especially in larger display sizes because of their more readily and frequent possibility of fading. Well-processed sepia-toned prints with oil colouring are very long-lasting. The ones we get to restore are usually physically damaged due to careless storage or water or fire/smoke damage but not faded. So...in my case, 12 bucks per month is a small fee to pay for the amount of time saved in colouring these kinds of prints. It can be used as a stand-alone process or just be used as an intermediate step in a more detailed technique.

Other than business, I love to discover, restore, and display old family portraits for our home. We have a family wall with both current and old images. Every now and again a distant relative or 3rd cousin comes up with a priceless image that I can fix-up, colourize and display.

It really depends on what you are gonna do with it... (show quote)

Thanks for your comments.

Steved3604

Been near Lincoln dozens of times on my way to Sioux Falls SD to see the family. Always needed to stop at the riverboat casinos (until Colorado realized they could get tax revenue). The above comments seem to cover the current colorization landscape. I've see continued improvement over the past years on colorization. I use either Adobe or Heritage. Both have their pluses and minuses. I did a BW of Winnie (the bulldog shot by Karsh) and the only color was his face -- and it looked great. Dark suit, dark wall and an almost perfect flesh tone. Like suggested -- some adjustment in PS or PSE completes the colorization. I predict in a few years it will probably be perfect and an accessory to PS and PSE. Also, I agree Heritage should offer just a colorization program (website) and/or the current service. Let us know how everything comes out. GL