Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by vivithemage, Jan 18, 2012.
pretty awesome photo's, enjoy!
Sorry, but as an old school photographer who learned the art on film, I just can't stand colorization. For one point, it's no longer a photo. Someone has made decisions regarding skin tones and backgrounds and painted them in. They were imaged in B&W, just leave them alone. It's how they were meant to be seen in the first place. IMO, Ted Turner has a special place in Hell for destroying classic films by colorizing them.
The colorized portraits look fantastic.
The event photos, with the exception of the Pearl Harbor shot, is better in B&W. I'm not referring the technical aspect, but the emotional one. In B&W, they evoke a more powerful emotional response from me at least.
I agree, still awesome though...a lot of B&W photo's hold a lot more feeling too imo.
Interesting and well done, but I have to admit that the colorized photos seem to lose something in the transition. B&W is a beautiful medium, and I hate to see these photos arbitrarily colored---no matter how well done it is.
I completely agree. I totally can't stand the colorized classic films and am glad that era seems to be behind us for the most part (it was a fad that should have never started IMHO). Especially for film noir films, so much of the effect is lost by adding color (that may very well not even be accurate); the low light effects were intentional and very effective.
How about low lights + color ... there are some shows that are trying it, and I don't think I like it.
I think its nice. If they could have had color photos back then they would have. I'm not really a fan of the whole "everything in black and white" but I do appreciate good pictures, and some b&w photos really stimulate the senses.
Your pictures are good! Some of the colors are off, but other than that it's not *terrible* but some look obviously fake. Images like "The American Dream" and "Migrant Mother" look real-to-life but others look fake/painted.
These are definitely not mine, www.forrifarg.se
There have been very few successful film noir films done in simply because it is so difficult to portray the same emotion with color. It can be done, as evidenced by such movies as Chinatown, but it is not often accomplished. Personally I will never let go of my classic (mostly film noir) collection; I have most of them converted for my TV2.
sadly, because it probably required huge effort.
I've always wondered when I've seen these photos - is there any way to definitively tell the colour of something in a black and white image?
For example, how do they know for sure the colour of Hitchcock's tie or the car in the American Dream without seeing them? Are colourisations an art form in themselves, by allowing the artist to reinterpret the scene?
Almost anyone with the money can take an excellent picture today, in the digital colour format.
But a classic picture in B&W was harder to take. Much harder. Leave them be.
Those were all pretty cool.
Some pictures work better in B&W, some work better in color. Just because color wasn't an available technology at the time doesn't mean B&W works better by default.
I liked them, pretty good and there are some that are really good.
Very cool, thank you!
The ones that look like they MIGHT have actually been color originally work OK. Some of them look like the bad pastel paint jobs from the 60s and those don't work for me at all... for example, I think the Hitchcock and burning monk (especially the burning monk, that looks like it could really be color and in my opinion is extremely powerful in color) work really well while the Lincoln and Chaplin look absurd.
Although some pics look a little fake to me, the artist did a great job overall (in terms of technical skill... I know I couldn't have done that). That being said, some photos listed there still work better in B&W, especially the "V J Day in NYC" and Dorothea Lange's portrait. The kissing couple gets hidden amongst all the color and somehow, the emotion in the mother's face is muted in the color version.
Unfortunately, to most (non-photography) people, B&W Photography is often thought of as second-rate ("why shoot B&W when you can shoot color!") or just used for artsy purposes... While I have no idea what the artist who did these recolorizations thinks about B&W photos in general, this project doesn't do much to show the general public the inherent beauty of B&W.
I think some of the photos (like the Vietnam one) may have had color film available at the time. However, sometimes its the photographers artistic choice to use B&W as opposed to color film. In those cases, adding in the colors (to me at least) is like taking Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and converting it to B&W.
Yeah, some are not so hot, but some she hit right on the head.
As a technical exercise, they're brilliant. But in most cases (as said) the colour doesn't add a lot, and in some cases, detracts. The Burning Monk is incredible in colour, though.
I'm also a big fan of B&W photography, though. I've dabbled in it a bit, but mostly I just think well-done B&Ws are very classy and can add a lot of sophistication to a place.
I totally agree, but i do sometimes wonder what it would be like if it was in colour. And i did spent my childhood thinking that it was B&W back then(dumb, i know, but i was 5). But these colorized pictures are ugly as hell.
I agree. I really like the Operation Crossroads, and got excited to see it in color. After I enlarged it I noticed It wasn't that great. But still, I think the idea is nice and it's weird to see Abe Lincoln in a blue suit. every rendition of him and his hat, is always all black.
I think as long as the original B&W photos are not lost forever, there is a place for these, as art at the very least. Some of them are pretty neat.
What I like about the color images, both real and fake, is that they seem to make it more current and real.
B&W WWII images/film, for example, have always been something later generations could look at and say "Oh that's black and white; it was a long time ago." The color footage from WWII, it is much more "real" to me. It could have been last year, and the death and destruction can't be written off as easily.
I guess we are getting into an age where with CGI and such we can basically create any period in time we want, past or future - but seeing these iconic photos in a new way is interesting.