Tweet OK, I'm going to be the bad guy here

[Danny Burk]

Danny,

It looks great, but the color is also more pronounced than it was before. I try to keep the skin-tone more subtle. I could have gave it more tan, but why? If you want more pigment on the faces, just let me know? Understand that on my monitor the brightness and contrast settings are at well under 50%, because of my weak eyes. So it is a little difficult for me to know what other people may be seeing on their own monitor screens. Also you need to take into account if you are using Warm, Cool, or some other Color settings?

Viewing different monitors is always a problem unless they're calibrated, which most are not. Mine is, so Mary's tones look as close to ideal as I could get them (in 5 minutes of playing, anyway); I suspect that your monitor is showing more vivid/saturated color.

I actually reduced saturation slightly from your version, but the major changes were shifting cyan toward red, blue toward yellow, and reducing black in shadows. These operations are on separate layers, masked to show only faces and hands.

Bob,

So far, I prefer my original effort. what you have done looks good, but is to Vivd, and the faces are to red. Frequently, I will struggle with the Skin-tone becoming to red as well. But I would rather have it more red, than I would to much Gold.

If you want more of a slightly faded Two-color Technicolor look. Try this. Someplace I have a photo of Fay Wray that looks almost exactly like Two-Color Technicolor, but I achieved the effect pretty much by accident. Course we know now that Clara's hair was not this hue.




Clara Bow-"Just a Tad Worrisome"

Gagman, I figured out how to make everybody love your photos - just show 'em my versions. Here's Colleen and Virginia as reinterpreted by yours truly. And I agree with you about too much red in the skin tones, Here I basically darkened the overall tone:

It's nice except to me that aqua/turquoise/blue-green shade sets my teeth on edge

Bob,

So far, I prefer my original effort. what you have done looks good, but is to Vivd, and the faces are to red. Frequently, I will struggle with the Skin-tone becoming to red as well. But I would rather have it more red, than I would to much Gold.

If you want more of a slightly faded Two-color Technicolor look. Try this. Someplace I have a photo of Fay Wray that looks almost exactly like Two-Color Technicolor, but I achieved the effect pretty much by accident. Course we know now that Clara's hair was not this hue.




Clara Bow-"Just a Tad Worrisome"

That one's pretty nice I reckon.

These two stills of Evelyn Nesbit got raves on another forum last week. They are not my work. The first one I think is positively stunning to behold. But on the second, I can barely make out the color. And it looks like she has badly chapped lips with no pigment? What do people think here?

:D These two stills of Evelyn Nesbit got raves on another forum last week. They are not my work. The first one I think is positively stunning to behold. But on the second, I can barely make out the color. What do people think here?

Both are pretty terrible but I must take issue with the above one which illustrates my issue perfectly. The original, as shot by Gertrude Kasebier, is a sight to behold and shows how much detail is lost by coloring these photos in:



If you like your women to look like they've had all the blood sucked out of them go ahead, but I prefer the all natural where I can see imperfections and freckles.

The one thing I do object to is DVD’s of B/W films (not colorized) being sold in stores with colorized photos on the covers and the films being passed off as having been originally shot in colour – this is blatant and misleading advertising.

Sometimes, as you might have seen in the "colorization thread," I've dabbled in this. Personally, I look at what I do as a derivative artwork—not meant to replace the original, or make it more palatable to others, but simply in an experiment in light and color.

My feelings exactly, as I've also done a bit of dabbling, and I'm really enjoying looking at what others have done here.

I like to think that colorization, for want of a better term, can be used in all sorts of ways – not just for old movie scene photos. I used to own and operate a local history website and, rather than use an old engraving, I sourced an 1865 photo of the subject and decided to colorize it. As far as interest in local history was concerned here, it was certainly a dramatic improvement over the poor-quality engraving I had previously had to use.



The photo is of Captain James Waddell of the American Confederate warship 'Shenandoah' which arrived in Melbourne Australia in late January 1865. Whilst in Melbourne, Waddell and some of the crew had their photos taken. There are several books about this ship and its captain, including "Rebel Down Under" by Cyril Pearl (1970).

Louie D,

Well, I don't see any loss of detail to speak of personally. But I can say that I do not like the shade of the hair. I'm sure that it wasn't that color. As for myself losing so much detail in the photos, I don't see that either. I try to retain as much of it as possible. One reason that the colors are more subdued.

Countryslicker,

Why is the sky pink???

That one I just don't like, particularly the hair. It looks like a colored lithograph, and not a good one (I apologize)

Worst colorization I've ever seen is the Home of Heroes site. With the best of intent they've made Medal of Honor winners look like cake decorations, plus they've put the same US Flag image in the back of each picture.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/photos/6_ww ... lesey.html (this one is typical)

[Mike Gebert]

I can't look at that soldier one without thinking that his head is going to pop off and his leg is going to rotate laterally to kick it like a soccer ball.

Countryslicker,
Why is the sky pink???

Why not? . It was "an experiment in light and color" - purely artistic license on my part whilst starting to learn Painter and Photoshop. The sky is actually in several subtle shades but the effect don't show up too well here. Of course Aussie skies can look like that in summer, particularly during bushfires.

After seeing the Home of Heroes site, I don't feel at all bad about my effort with an 1865 photo .

Louie D,

Well, I don't see any loss of detail to speak of personally.

Look at her face, the detail in her skin is gone, the slight freckles, the subtle shading, etc. Same for her dress/nightgown/whatever. And look at her right hand and wrist (left in the picture). There's nothing there in the colorized one. I don't hate it though. I DO hate the second one, the one where you said you can hardly make out the color. My monitor is calibrated correctly and the skin on her chest and shoulders is REALLY blotchy. It looks like she has some kind of disease. It's not as bad on her arm, but who's looking at that?


And as Mike pointed out, that army soldier looks like something out of Gilliam's Monty Python animations.

I'll throw my hat into the ring though and show an image that I colorized. It's not a portrait, so it's more forgiving:



There's a super huge version (3000x2606) here: http://www.shorpy.com/node/7016?size=_original

If I added a sky with clouds it would look a lot more realistic. Maybe I'll do that some time.

Fred

fwtep,

Err, well you will be happy to know that I don't faze out freckles if they are there. This lady was using a different program than I do. May have had something to do with it. Picture It as opposed to Photoshop for example both work on entirely different principals. This is neither.

fwtep,

Err, well you will be happy to know that I don't faze out freckles if they are there.

I'm not saying you do, nor am I saying I dislike your work, I was just responding to your comment about not seeing the lost detail. To me it's a night and day difference (or at least an early evening and day difference) between the detail in the colorized version and the original.

There's a super huge version (3000x2606) here: http://www.shorpy.com/node/7016?size=_original

Fred

Meh. It's OK, but too damn sanitized. Look at the cart with the "ticket" signs on it, just too vibrant colors for that kind of cart. Also, I have never seen any brown cobblestones anywhere and the building with the shingles on it would probably be gray slate and not brown in color, so you're just interpreting what you think it should be. One of the better jobs I have seen but still not that great.

Wow. This is just AWFUL.

There's a super huge version (3000x2606) here: http://www.shorpy.com/node/7016?size=_original

I find this one very pleasing to the eye.

so you're just interpreting what you think it should be.

.....and, what's wrong with that??

fwtep,

Amazing work. As big as that photo is it must have taken a month to colorize all of that?

so you're just interpreting what you think it should be.

.....and, what's wrong with that??

It's not realistic and it looks dumb.

I like colors that are barely hinted at!

As somebody mentioned, the calibration of our monitors will make a big difference in our perception of these photos and given the huge divergence of opinions, I think this has to be a factor. If you've ever sat in the back of a passenger plane and looked at the personal monitors that flip down for movies, I don't think I've seen any two that are calibrated the same way - different brightness and contrast, different color density and tinting. Then too, a lot of this discussion is in the eye of the beholder. At the risk of stating the obvious, let me note that b/w is the most unrealistic form of photography. We don't see in b/w and don't walk around in b/w.

I tried my hand at some coloring. Here's a still from the 1914 film "Tillie's Punctured Romance". Left to right, Marie Dressler, Mack Swain, Charlie Chaplin, and Mabel Normand:

LouieD wins the Internets for the day!

I tried my hand at some coloring. Here's a still from the 1914 film "Tillie's Punctured Romance". Left to right, Marie Dressler, Mack Swain, Charlie Chaplin, and Mabel Normand:

After I get through hugging every SEAL I know, you are getting such a hearty handshake.

[silentfilm]

There's a super huge version (3000x2606) here: http://www.shorpy.com/node/7016?size=_original

If I added a sky with clouds it would look a lot more realistic. Maybe I'll do that some time.

Fred

As a general rule, I don't like any of these colorizations, but this one looks pretty realistic to me. Of course the people are small, so you don't have to worry about skin tones.

so you're just interpreting what you think it should be.

.....and, what's wrong with that??

It's not realistic and it looks dumb.

Nah, it looks really nice

Louie, yes, yours is the most realistic and prize worthy. They don't look teal or green, and have even skin tones. I just can't wait to see more color. NOTTTT!!!!!

For all practical purposes this discussion thread has "jumped the shark" if you know what I mean. You'll have to excuse me now - I have to start on my cinemagraphic paintings for the upcoming post on the Arliss Archives.

Wow. This is just AWFUL.

To me this looks remarkably like the colorizations of old material that Terry Gilliam did for his animations on Monty Python's Flying Circus. I'm expecting the guy to get crushed by a giant foot any moment, accompanied by the usual raspberry sound effect.