Interesting!

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:15:03 -0500 Mort wrote:-

George Kerby wrote:
Colorization of old famous photographs...

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



Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The
colorizing was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Mort Linder

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Some of these photos look more evocative in the original b&w, IMO.

Colorizing makes them look like typical photographs. I think it's less
uninteresting, but interesting to see the difference.

Greg

On 11/15/13 PDT, 7:15 PM, Mort wrote:
George Kerby wrote:
Colorization of old famous photographs...

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

Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The colorizing
was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Yes, interesting. On the whole, except for portraits that look like
paintings, I prefer the B&W to color for those photos that existed prior
to color photography.

Le 25/11/13 22:45, John McWilliams a écrit :
On 11/15/13 PDT, 7:15 PM, Mort wrote:
George Kerby wrote:
Colorization of old famous photographs...

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

Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The colorizing
was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Yes, interesting. On the whole, except for portraits that look like
paintings, I prefer the B&W to color for those photos that existed prior
to color photography.

Colorizing photography was a practice before the age of color
photography. Of course it was done by painters (with water based paint).

And the age of color photography started sooner that we usually think :
first autochromes were about 1910, I believe. They lack definition, but
the colors are great, very vibrant, not at all "old time".

Noëlle Adam

In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

Colorization of old famous photographs...

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

Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The colorizing
was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Yes, interesting. On the whole, except for portraits that look like
paintings, I prefer the B&W to color for those photos that existed prior
to color photography.

Colorizing photography was a practice before the age of color
photography. Of course it was done by painters (with water based paint).

And the age of color photography started sooner that we usually think :
first autochromes were about 1910, I believe. They lack definition, but
the colors are great, very vibrant, not at all "old time".

The "colors" were vibrant because they weren't really colors at all - they
were black and white photos taken with color filters which can be stitched
together today adding whatever "vibrancy" one wants

Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky was a famous name back then (some hundred years ago)
and his photos doesn't lack detail at all. When the three photos are
combined, you get photos with both great detail and great colors.

Here are some pics from him:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...ntury_ago.html

And, in contrast to the colorized pictures in the link in the OP, these
look like actual photographs, not like faded color photos (which is the way
they call them "realistic").


--
Sandman[.net]

On 11/26/13 PDT, 5:27 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

Colorization of old famous photographs...

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

Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The colorizing
was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Yes, interesting. On the whole, except for portraits that look like
paintings, I prefer the B&W to color for those photos that existed prior
to color photography.

Colorizing photography was a practice before the age of color
photography. Of course it was done by painters (with water based paint).

And the age of color photography started sooner that we usually think :
first autochromes were about 1910, I believe. They lack definition, but
the colors are great, very vibrant, not at all "old time".

The "colors" were vibrant because they weren't really colors at all - they
were black and white photos taken with color filters which can be stitched
together today adding whatever "vibrancy" one wants

An amazing body of work. With three exposures required, and plates
having to be changed in between, the group shots are incredible. So is
the self portrait!

On 26 Nov 2013 in rec.photo.digital, John McWilliams wrote:

An amazing body of work. With three exposures required, and plates
having to be changed in between, the group shots are incredible. So is
the self portrait!

The (US) Library of Congress has a piece on how they were done:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html

None of Prokudin-Gorskii's equipment survives, but the theory is that
there was some kind of setup for doing near-simultaneous exposures. You
can see artifacts of the process in the river in the image titled
"Pinkhus Karlinskii".

ObDigitalPhotography: The images were scanned using an 'overhead digital
camera in grayscale mode', then reduced to 8-bit greyscale.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Le 26/11/13 14:27, Sandman a écrit :
In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

Colorization of old famous photographs...

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

Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The colorizing
was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Yes, interesting. On the whole, except for portraits that look like
paintings, I prefer the B&W to color for those photos that existed prior
to color photography.

Colorizing photography was a practice before the age of color
photography. Of course it was done by painters (with water based paint).

And the age of color photography started sooner that we usually think :
first autochromes were about 1910, I believe. They lack definition, but
the colors are great, very vibrant, not at all "old time".

The "colors" were vibrant because they weren't really colors at all - they
were black and white photos taken with color filters which can be stitched
together today adding whatever "vibrancy" one wants

Hum, I was refering to autochrome process invented by Lumière brothers,
no stiching after 3 different films (this process was used afterward and
I saw one of the first fiction movie made this way) . The autochromes
dont lack details (they used large format anyway) but look grainy. This
have a very distinctive aspect, quite interesting on artistic point of
view. I had the possibility of close look at an exhibition about
pictorialists photographers.

Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky was a famous name back then (some hundred years ago)
and his photos doesn't lack detail at all. When the three photos are
combined, you get photos with both great detail and great colors.
Yes, I was refering to another process.
The colors of autochromes are great, but the surface made of potatoes
flour is very fragile. Sorry I have no link in english.
http://www.galerie-photo.com/autochrome.html

Here are some pics from him:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...ntury_ago.html
Great !

And, in contrast to the colorized pictures in the link in the OP, these
look like actual photographs, not like faded color photos (which is the way
they call them "realistic").

I agree.

Noëlle Adam

On 11/26/13 10:16 AM, in article , "John
McWilliams" wrote:

On 11/26/13 PDT, 5:27 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle
wrote:

Colorization of old famous photographs...

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

Thanks for the nice post, appreciated by this old timer. The colorizing
was done nicely, with no Las Vegas screaming colors.

Yes, interesting. On the whole, except for portraits that look like
paintings, I prefer the B&W to color for those photos that existed prior
to color photography.

Colorizing photography was a practice before the age of color
photography. Of course it was done by painters (with water based paint).

And the age of color photography started sooner that we usually think :
first autochromes were about 1910, I believe. They lack definition, but
the colors are great, very vibrant, not at all "old time".

The "colors" were vibrant because they weren't really colors at all - they
were black and white photos taken with color filters which can be stitched
together today adding whatever "vibrancy" one wants

An amazing body of work. With three exposures required, and plates
having to be changed in between, the group shots are incredible. So is
the self portrait!


Has me scratching my head as well...

In article , John McWilliams wrote:

The "colors" were vibrant because they weren't really colors at all - they
were black and white photos taken with color filters which can be stitched
together today adding whatever "vibrancy" one wants

An amazing body of work. With three exposures required, and plates
having to be changed in between, the group shots are incredible. So is
the self portrait!

Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky used a special camera, though, pictured he

http://tinyurl.com/nj6u2em




--
Sandman[.net]

On 11/26/13 3:33 PM, in article , "Sandman"
wrote:

In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

The "colors" were vibrant because they weren't really colors at all - they
were black and white photos taken with color filters which can be stitched
together today adding whatever "vibrancy" one wants

An amazing body of work. With three exposures required, and plates
having to be changed in between, the group shots are incredible. So is
the self portrait!

Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky used a special camera, though, pictured he

http://tinyurl.com/nj6u2em


The article said that was the projector, not the camera.