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.
Blenheim Orange wrote:
I watched a video on YouTube tonight of colorized Civil War era photos. Most of the photos I have seen many, many times over the years, and I am amazed by the difference it makes to see them in color.
I'll put the link in the next post.
For me, seeing historical photos in colour is not necessary. I think they look inaccurate. Colour isn't needed to see life as it was. In fact, there are lots of photos that are so perfect in black and white that they need nothing else introduced to make them better. That's my personal opinion, of course. Can you tell that I prefer B&W over colour?
Dean37 wrote:
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.
I have always preferred photos in color. Black an... (
show quote)
As one who does lots of copying of family photo albums for digital slide shows, I'll point out that one of the terrible things about color is that the dyes in traditional silver halide chromogenic prints fade rapidly. 30 to 40 year old prints show SERIOUSLY bad fading. So if you work in color, archive your digital images, and if you print, print new images with a pigment ink photo printer. Pigment color inks printed on archival quality inkjet photo papers are tested by Wilhelm Imaging Research to last up to 200 years or more. Black pigment inks can last twice that long. Real silver halide black-and-white materials are made with grains of silver metal, and when properly processed, can last well over 150 years.
I see your WOW! And raise you a MOST EXCELLENT!!!!!!
Linda From Maine wrote:
Mike, amazed in a good way or bad? Expand, please
I'd love to chat about the role of color vs. the impact of black and white.
I think B&W has to be done properly with respect to contrast and tones in order to invoke the emotional connection that color does.
Blenheim Orange wrote:
I watched a video on YouTube tonight of colorized Civil War era photos. Most of the photos I have seen many, many times over the years, and I am amazed by the difference it makes to see them in color.
I'll put the link in the next post.
What difference does it make?
Color distracts, that's the point. It may be "beautiful" but is only one part of a photo. B&W is as said above about composition and story. IMHO.
burkphoto wrote:
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.
Following... br br One is not necessarily better ... (
show quote)
Absolutely spot on regarding Vietnam and use of color. We lost Cronkite.
leftj wrote:
What difference does it make?
If it makes no difference to you, why comment? Why did you even read the post?
DebAnn wrote:
For me, seeing historical photos in colour is not necessary. I think they look inaccurate. Colour isn't needed to see life as it was. In fact, there are lots of photos that are so perfect in black and white that they need nothing else introduced to make them better. That's my personal opinion, of course. Can you tell that I prefer B&W over colour?
While I can see someone preferring B&W as an artistic medium I disagree about seeing life as it was. I think the color more successfully transports me to a time and place. I think I get a better sense of what it was like. People didn’t live in B&W.
As an artist, I will always choose color over B/W even those some B/W photos are very vivid and outstanding, great contrast and detailed. A while back, I was asked here if I could paint a picture in black and white. YES I can and YES, I will paint one and post it here when I think of what I'd want to paint...just hasn't come to me yet, but color will always be my choice...I just can't help it.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I think the color more successfully transports me to a time and place. I think I get a better sense of what it was like.
That describes my experience with those images. I am very familiar with the images and the history, but the colorized images transports me to that time and place in a way that the narratives and b&w images do not. I had a similar experience walking the actual battle fields for the first time.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.