If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o ld-whiz/ -- teleportation kills |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:50 +0200, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/famous-bw-photos-turned-color-21-year-old-whiz/ That's an interesting point about the changing of the perception of reality and I think your comment is valid. In the end people will favour or disfavour colouring according to whether or not it supports or contradicts the perception they have already gained from the monochrome. The problem is that the real reality remains the same no matter what the viewer of a photograph may have concluded from a particular image. In the end, neither the monochrome nor the coloured image may give rise to a correct perception of reality. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o ld-whiz/ Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is colorized IMHO is dead wrong. -- Ken Hart |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:50 +0200, android wrote: Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...-21-year-old-w hiz/ That's an interesting point about the changing of the perception of reality and I think your comment is valid. In the end people will favour or disfavour colouring according to whether or not it supports or contradicts the perception they have already gained from the monochrome. Unfortunately lots of people are attracted to color like flies to sugar cubes. The success of the TMC, Turner Movie Chanel colorization project shows that. Yet, the movies are fiction and do not aspire to represent reality anyways. With proper markup it would have been fine with me since the digitalization project that it financed saved over a 100 000 films, IIRC. Lots of people that just did not watch BW tuned in to colorized... The problem is that the real reality remains the same no matter what the viewer of a photograph may have concluded from a particular image. In the end, neither the monochrome nor the coloured image may give rise to a correct perception of reality. Yes, the perception of reality through media is always a limited window but when you enter false data you are asking more of critical thinking than most people can handle. If you, like make Hitler blue eyed then you world confirm the beliefs in among many some parts of the world that blue eyed people are evil! No, mine are azure... ;-ppp -- teleportation kills |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote: Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/famous-bw-photos-turned-color-21-year-old-whiz/ Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is colorized IMHO is dead wrong. Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that color photographs were taken then. I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode switch goes! Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple "authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos. -- Ken Hart |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
On 2017-04-17 22:36:37 +0000, Ken Hart said:
On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote: Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/famous-bw-photos-turned-color-21-year-old-whiz/ Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is colorized IMHO is dead wrong. Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that color photographs were taken then. I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode switch goes! Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple "authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos. Correct. However, I would say that it was more of a staged shot rather than fake. The photograph was taken several days after the Battle of Gettysburg long after the combatants had left the field. The photographer was not Brady, but Alexander Gardner, and it is doubtful that Brady ever visited Gettysburg. Gardner and two of his associates had dragged the dead confederate 40 yards from where they had first found him, to the site of the photograph. Add to that they used the same body in two other staged photographs taken in different positions. One of those showed two dead confederates. Gardner had disassociated himself from Brady in 1862. It was Gardner with his close association with Alan Pinkerton, they were both Scots, which gained him privileged access to battle sites such as Fredericksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, and to the condemned Lincoln assassination conspirators and their execution. Of course staging battle scenes after the event was common in the 19th Century, and the first example of this was found in the work of the very first "War photographer" Roger Fenton, with his "Valley of the Shadow of Death". For that scene long after the battle, he took two photographs. The first showed a clear dirt road running down the valley. The second showed the road strewn with hundreds of expended cannonballs, all placed by Fenton to create a more dramatic scene. Again, not fake, but staged. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
In article 2017041716460738165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-17 22:36:37 +0000, Ken Hart said: On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote: Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o ld-whiz/ Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is colorized IMHO is dead wrong. Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that color photographs were taken then. I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode switch goes! Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple "authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos. Correct. However, I would say that it was more of a staged shot rather than fake. The photograph was taken several days after the Battle of Gettysburg long after the combatants had left the field. The photographer was not Brady, but Alexander Gardner, and it is doubtful that Brady ever visited Gettysburg. Gardner and two of his associates had dragged the dead confederate 40 yards from where they had first found him, to the site of the photograph. Add to that they used the same body in two other staged photographs taken in different positions. One of those showed two dead confederates. Gardner had disassociated himself from Brady in 1862. It was Gardner with his close association with Alan Pinkerton, they were both Scots, which gained him privileged access to battle sites such as Fredericksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, and to the condemned Lincoln assassination conspirators and their execution. Of course staging battle scenes after the event was common in the 19th Century, and the first example of this was found in the work of the very first "War photographer" Roger Fenton, with his "Valley of the Shadow of Death". For that scene long after the battle, he took two photographs. The first showed a clear dirt road running down the valley. The second showed the road strewn with hundreds of expended cannonballs, all placed by Fenton to create a more dramatic scene. Again, not fake, but staged. If a photograph is staged then it's not a document depicting a pice of history but more like a drawing out of memory and thus not documentary and fake if ti claims to be that. -- teleportation kills |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote: On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:36:37 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote: Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o ld-whiz/ Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is colorized IMHO is dead wrong. Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that color photographs were taken then. It might have made more sense had I not inadvertently left out the "not" (...color photographs were not taken then.)when I typed the sentence. There were, but not of snapshots kind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography#Early_experiments I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode switch goes! Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple "authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos. -- teleportation kills |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Live or Is It Memorex?
On 2017-04-18 18:03:10 +0000, android said:
In article 2017041716460738165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-17 22:36:37 +0000, Ken Hart said: On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote: Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the movie. What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could cause... https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o ld-whiz/ Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is colorized IMHO is dead wrong. Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that color photographs were taken then. I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode switch goes! Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple "authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos. Correct. However, I would say that it was more of a staged shot rather than fake. The photograph was taken several days after the Battle of Gettysburg long after the combatants had left the field. The photographer was not Brady, but Alexander Gardner, and it is doubtful that Brady ever visited Gettysburg. Gardner and two of his associates had dragged the dead confederate 40 yards from where they had first found him, to the site of the photograph. Add to that they used the same body in two other staged photographs taken in different positions. One of those showed two dead confederates. Gardner had disassociated himself from Brady in 1862. It was Gardner with his close association with Alan Pinkerton, they were both Scots, which gained him privileged access to battle sites such as Fredericksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, and to the condemned Lincoln assassination conspirators and their execution. Of course staging battle scenes after the event was common in the 19th Century, and the first example of this was found in the work of the very first "War photographer" Roger Fenton, with his "Valley of the Shadow of Death". For that scene long after the battle, he took two photographs. The first showed a clear dirt road running down the valley. The second showed the road strewn with hundreds of expended cannonballs, all placed by Fenton to create a more dramatic scene. Again, not fake, but staged. If a photograph is staged then it's not a document depicting a pice of history but more like a drawing out of memory and thus not documentary and fake if ti claims to be that. The thing to remember is, modern war and combat photography today (WWII-today) is not what war photography was in 1855 and the mid-19th Century. In those days there was no combat photography as we have come to know it. Fenton didn't have the luxury of a Leica M or Nikon F to shoot and capture the immediacy of combat, or any action at all. He and those who followed him like Brady and Gardner were hampered by wet plate photography and mobile darkrooms in covered wagons. Fenton's developed plates shot in the Crimea took weeks to reach London and they were toned down by newspaper editors for Victorian sensibilities. None of those early photographers were in the field at the time of the action, and were there to record the aftermath rather than the immediate events. Even then, in the case of Brady and Gardner they photographed the horror and mortal cost of war. On many Civil War battle fields the dead were found lying as they fell days before the photographers came upon them. Most of their work was published weeks, sometimes months after the event, and there was less of a sense of achieving historic accuracy than a record of the aftermath of the event. All with a lot less moral outrage than we would express today if we were to discover that a contempory shot had been altered, or faked, or a scene staged. So with Mathew Brady and Alexander Gardner we have some shots which are not staged, and some which are staged. Also, because Brady had the distibution and publishing connections in NYC he became known as "The Civil War" photographer and many famous photographs he did not shoot have been incorrectly attributed to him. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's The Best Country To Live In? | Matt Clara[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | May 14th 09 08:53 PM |
live Preview | Moonstarer | Digital SLR Cameras | 15 | August 29th 07 10:34 PM |
rec.photo: live & let live | John McGraw | Large Format Photography Equipment | 44 | October 8th 04 04:46 AM |