20 Historic Black and White Photos Colorized

[AllGold]

A lot of people in the photography and photojournalism business have a love for black and white images and really get all huffy and poo-poo anything that is colorized.

I'm not one of them. While I am old enough to have been around when most of the work was B&W (but I'm not old enough that color wasn't available ;-)), I have always been a color guy. I see in color and when I look at a B&W photo I feel like I'm missing something. I'll admit there are a few images that I think are better in B&W but for the vast majority, I definitely prefer color.

[hal]

AllGold wrote:
A lot of people in the photography and photojournalism business have a love for black and white images and really get all huffy and poo-poo anything that is colorized.

I'm not one of them. While I am old enough to have been around when most of the work was B&W (but I'm not old enough that color wasn't available ;-)), I have always been a color guy. I see in color and when I look at a B&W photo I feel like I'm missing something. I'll admit there are a few images that I think are better in B&W but for the vast majority, I definitely prefer color.

I consider B&W a 'special effect'

[rz]

Walt Whitman = Gandalf

[Ca Bob]

Hi Eustace

I remember reading about that oldest photograph at one time. It was made in France in the 1820s. Here is a link to a website dedicated to the man who invented the process. You can click on a link on the page that shows a modern recreation of the process, including the photograph that results. I'll leave it to the French speakers to tell us whether it is the same site or not.

http://www.niepce.com/pages/page-inv.html

[eustacetilley]

Ca Bob wrote:
Hi Eustace

I remember reading about that oldest photograph at one time. It was made in France in the 1820s. Here is a link to a website dedicated to the man who invented the process. You can click on a link on the page that shows a modern recreation of the process, including the photograph that results. I'll leave it to the French speakers to tell us whether it is the same site or not.

http://www.niepce.com/pages/page-inv.html

Hi Ca Bob

I used the wiki link because It is historical. I found one loathsome site that actually claimed a copyright on their version of the image. It's even claims copyright in the URL.

Your site... my French is atrocious; it is even worse than my English. I didn't know about that site, and I thank you for pointing it out. With some effort, I may even be able to understand a bit.

I love firsts. Whether it is a photograph, a book, a poem, a new bit of music... it doesn't matter much.
I have my eye on a particular boat. It is not only the first of its kind to make it to these shores, it appears to be the only boat of its kind actually here. The owner, without much fanfare, sailed it here from Denmark. Alone. A first.

My own contribution to firsts is meager. 118/116 proved a bust, but I was useful in the confirmation of Element 106. I was the first recent first to find an unknown Bolbones midden, and by agreement with the local Park Service, the midden shall remain hidden, for a while longer. The Park Service doesn't like me much; I once pointed out a particular feature from my youthful memories that left a strong impression, and I was only grudgingly allowed access. It was a lot smaller than I remembered.

Enough firsts. Now I shall let you into a little secret: I worked on a piece about "Breaking Bad" for posting here, a "posting here" that I later discarded. Leave it to say, Calcium Boron Oxygen Boron was a significant part. Ca BOB. Your's was the _first_ moniker that I thought of, that fit the theme.

Thanks

Eu..S..Ta..Ce

[Dennis S]

That first one got to me.

[A-Polly]

rz wrote:
Walt Whitman = Gandalf

I can see that, but my first thought was of Dumbledore, right down to the bright blue eye.

As others above, I did not expect to like as many of these as I did. One that I did prefer in the original B&W was No. 7 (of course, not all of them included the originals for comparison).

[RE:up]

eustacetilley wrote:
Normally, I would be opposed to this, just as I was opposed to what Turner was doing. (Ted, not William...) But I was surprised at some of the quality here. Nice work.

Eustace

Colorizing B&W prints is an old technique from the days before there was color film and printing. The tints are applied with brushes, and each print is unique, there was simply no way to make exact duplicates as one does today on a computer. No undo if a mistake happens or you don't like the effect. Just as every print is made one at a time.
Ansel Adams said something like," The negative is the score, the print is the performance." The making of a unique colorized photo from a unique print of a unique negative adds up in a way to a lot of "firsts" as you commented on above.

It's painstaking, tedious work, I've tried a few times with unsatisfactory results. I enjoy seeing a well done colorized print. For me it adds something to it's individuality and artistic vision. Not to take away my enjoyment of a well printed silver B&W print. I saw some Adam's originals at the SF MOMA a few years back. Absolutely masterful. Detail and depth that you can't get from a reproduction in a book, and certainly not a computer moniter.

[mikebw]

Grateful11 wrote:
As much as I like B&W I have to say the colorization does add a somewhat different prospective on some of the photos.

It certainly makes history seem like not so long ago.

[sekker]

All this discussion does is make me think of a Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin asks his dad about when color photography was invented.

The dad answered, why no, Calvin - the world was black and white and then changed to color. We've always been taking color photos!

http://www.reoiv.com/random.asp?img=dadb...colour.jpg&page=2