Stunning colourized historic photos.

[Locut0s]

http://indulgd.com/realistically-colorized-historical-photos/

"
A new artistic trend has broken out around the world which changes our perception of history dramatically. Colorizing historic photographs from the late 1800′s and early 1900′s changes their appearance from something historic and different, into a scene from today. The colorful image of Albert Einstein sitting beside the water gives us an entire new perspective on the genius. He goes from a brilliant historic relic, into a living brilliance of our era. The colorized photograph of Audrey Hepburn transforms our thoughts of beauty. Her photo goes from an intriguing historic photo to one of a sexy starlet of today. Historic events move forward decades, or even a full century, by the addition of color carefully planned and applied by artists like Jordan Lloyd, Dana Keller, and Sanna Dullaway.
"









And many more.

[mnhtnbb]

1. Interesting photos. Had to scroll through to find the one of Audrey Hepburn.

Do you realize that's Liz Taylor in the last one of your OP?

[Locut0s]

2. Yeah I didn't line up the photos with the quoted text...

Looking at it now I can see it seems that way since I chose the Einstein photo that is discussed there. But my choice of which photos to post was actually rather random

[emanymton]

3. Questionable Value ...

.

Colorizing photographs ... why?

The impact of an original black and white image is seldom enhanced by adding color. The power of the works from Mathew Brady (and other earlier photographers) through Ansel Adams, Willard Van Dyke, Edward Weston and others photographers come through on their own merit. Adding another person's idea of what color the picture should have ... really?

Thank you. But no.

Ema Nymton
~ @ : o ?
.

[Locut0s]

4. I agree, to a point...

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2014, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

You might not believe me but I'm a huge fan of black and white photography and I would never dream of colourizing an Ansel Adams.

However most of the photos posted in the OP are more interesting for their historic value than for their artistic value. These false colourized shots do indeed remove something of value from the original, and like I said I would never dream of doing something similar to B&W masterpieces, that would only serve to cheapen and remove most of what is so amazing about those shots. But when you are dealing with photos that are mainly interesting from a historic point of view, colourizing like this can actually give you an interesting perspective on the shots.

The whole reason people love these shots is that they give one a window onto an earlier time. They allow the viewer to feel connected to a time and place in history that they would otherwise only be able to read about and imagine. Artistically very few of these shots are anywhere near in the ballpark with the likes of Adams, Willard Van Dyke, Edward Weston. Indeed many of these shots were simple head shots of well known figures of their time. Remove the historical context and most of these shots (with some notable exceptions, I'll give you that) would be of little interest.

However given their immense historic appeal, colourization does lend them a new twist. It brings to life these figures and locals in a different way than the originals did, giving the viewer a new perspective on these figures and events.

Truly artistic B&W photography is all about Chiaroscuro, form, texture, and composition. Colourizing these types of photos would be blasphemous IMHO.

[Thor_MN]

6. Well said.

I find it easier to connect to a color image. The world before the 1940's was not colorless and drab. Black and White still has it's place, people still use it to great effect today, but color adds life.

I find no inherent value in the lack of fidelity of a recording medium. A piano concerto recorded on a 78 RPM album did not sound tinny and scratchy to the person sitting there playing it. The low fidelity detracts rather than adds compared to the same piece recorded on modern equipment.

While there can be no guarantee that a colorized picture has the correct color of a tie or scarf, it allows me to better imagine sitting next to a historical figure, rather than thinking "look at the dead person."

[surrealAmerican]

5. I agree.

Black and white is not a flaw, nor is the fact that they are two-dimensional, or that the clothing the subjects wore too old fashioned. Changing the images may be an interesting avenue for commentary, but it in no way improves on the original.

The photographers who made these images were experts at composing their images for the media they were using. If they had been intended to be in full color, the photographers would have colorized them, which is anything but recent development. You can, in fact, find daguerreotypes that were colorized by the photographers who made them.

[Locut0s]

7. I think you basically made my point though...

I don't think anyone would think that these attempts to colourize are improving on the originals. In fact I agree that in the realm of artistry it degrades the originals. This much we are both in agreement on. But you stated that "changing the images may be an interesting avenue for commentary" this is exactly why I like these photos. Not because they are improvements on the original, they are not at all, but because they stimulate discussion and provide an interesting new look at these historic figures. And photos like the shot of Anne Frank were not artistic pieces even at the time of their development, they were simple snapshots who's value is almost entirely historic.

[surrealAmerican]

8. That doesn't look like a snap shot to me.

It looks like a professionally posed portrait. I don't think there's a picture in this set that was not done with a sophisticated understanding of what the resultant image would look like (except, perhaps, the one of Charlie Chaplin, and I'm not so sure about that, either). While many of the images are photo-journalism, that in no way decreases their artistic value.