NitrateVille.com

OLD HOLLYWOOD IN COLOR is pleased to announce the second installment of its ongoing series of "On the Set with..." This time, we review the career of Lon Chaney (Sr.) and offer a number of scans directly from work negatives. All photos are digitally restored with sometimes startling results such as this "on the set" photo of Lon and actress Claire Windsor during the filming of THE UNKNOWN (1927):


Please visit us at the link below, Thanks very much!

Bob,

No offense intended, but that's a little to, no that's allot to loud! Try this here.





Incidentally, some of your new work is fantastic! The John Gilbert, and the Lillian Gish Close-up's! Excellent! You seem to be making very good progress. But that UNKNOWN is just way to vivid.

Here is the Lon/Clarie Windsor photo toned down significantly. And it is still to vivid! Your skintone's here are superb. Better than my own. At least after it was toned down some.

Thanks, Gagman. Your comments are always helpful and I welcome them. I've noticed that if the flesh tones in the b/w original are good, the application of color will work very well. On the HOLLYWOOD site, the Colin Clive photo was problematic. No matter what I did, the flesh tone never looked quite right. The John Gilbert photo was a piece of cake. Re the intensity of colors, if I'm a little heavy handed then I need to find a middle road. Your dialing down the color on the UNKNOWN photo looks a bit drained to me, so there's a happy medium somewhere.

Here's one I haven't added to the site yet - John Barrymore as The King of Fools from THE BELOVED ROGUE (1927). This photo has an interesting history - it was given to me by James Card around 1979 as a thank you for lending him my 16mm print of ROGUE. He made copies of photos himself and this one always looked like a copy of a copy, but a little digital restoration gave it a big boost:

Your original posting has PERFECT skin tones for Chaney, and his headkerchief is also perfect! Really, the only problem is that Claire's coat and hat are too vivid.

I greatly prefer your first version to gagman's version of the same photo.

Jim

Jim,

Well, I changed none of the colors from Bob's original. Not one hue or shade. I could have just toned down Claire Windsor's Hat and coat only. On my monitor there is nothing washed out about the after photo. Bob said the same thing about the Valentino one in the chair, but it has plenty of color left on my own monitor. Might have something to do if you are using Cool or Warm color settings. Automatic or Costume.

Bob,

Here are two more stills from WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS with Lon and Anita, that I worked on a couple years ago.







Also maybe you could use these Vintage Lobby-cards for LAUGH CLOWN LAUGH? They are not colorized. Although didn't Loretta Young actually have Green eyes?

Gagman 66 wrote:Jim,

Well, I changed none of the colors from Bob's original. Not one hue or shade. I could have just toned down Claire Windsor's Hat and coat only. On my monitor there is nothing washed out about the after photo. Bob said the same thing about the Valentino one in the chair, but it has plenty of color left on my own monitor. Might have something to do if you are using Cool or Warm color settings. Automatic or Costume.

Bob's original has a light on Lon's face; that light seems to be a bit muted in your version, and consequently his face seems less 'live". In Bob's version his face is almost 3D! Ironically, you got Claire's hat and coat just the right shade.

I don't think it could be my monitor setting. I can see all versions on the same page, and it's quite noticeable that your version is less "shiny", if I can put it that way.

Claire's coat and hat must be very difficult to get just right, but you managed to do it, so pat yourself on the back for that!

Jim

Jim,

Well, I can always fiddle with the skintone if you don't like it. I don't know where this came from. But it is gorgeous work. I added a little more shade to the eyes, as they were washed-out and the coloring wasn't distinguishable. Other than that, I didn't change a thing. No label and I do not remember where I saved this from? Just ran across it again last night.




Joan Crawford and Dorothy Sebastian-1928

That Crawford and Sebastian one is very nice- it resembles one of those old hand tinted post cards.

Frank,

You mean we actually found something that you like? How about these here?

first one very nice- the rest aren't bad, but I just don't feel the color adds to them.

The thing about colorizing photos from the 1920's, is that the film professional photographers used was orthochromatic, not panchromatic, therefore the colors of the original scene were not rendered in accurate monochrome values, thus making colorizing look artificial in many instances.

Gagman, thanks for offering the various photos and lobby cards. I actually had a request for Chaney in his clown makeup for LAUGH CLOWN LAUGH that I've added to the post if you don't mind.

FrankFay wrote:first one very nice- the rest aren't bad, but I just don't feel the color adds to them.

The bottom still is supposed to look like Two-Color Technicolor. I think that it does. I never put a logo on that one.

bobfells wrote:Gagman, thanks for offering the various photos and lobby cards. I actually had a request for Chaney in his clown makeup for LAUGH CLOWN LAUGH that I've added to the post if you don't mind.

Wow! I've never seen those Lobby-cards for WEST OF ZANZIBAR, WHERE EAST IS EAST, and WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS anyplace. They are all terrific! Where did you find them?

Incidentally, here is a link on TCM CFU to the most haunting version of the LAUGH CLOWN LAUGH song by Harry Richman. Jorge restored this recording about 3 or 4 years ago.

http://fan.tcm.com/_LAUGH-CLOWN-LAUGH-1 ... 66470.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Gagman wrote: "Wow! I've never seen those Lobby-cards for WEST OF ZANZIBAR, WHERE EAST IS EAST, and WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS anyplace. They are all terrific! Where did you find them?"

You can never tell what you'll find in the Arliss Archives!! Well, OK, I'll tell you the truth. The images you refer to are b/w negatives that were offered on ebay not long ago. I'm guessing that they are from some preliminary stage of creating lobby cards but they also could have been used to make glass slides. I added any and all color to them. Here are two more that I didn't use for the Chaney post on OLD HOLLYWOOD:

Gagman, I assume you're aiming for a two-strip Technicolor effect and it looks excellent:


I guess I'm a three-strip Technicolor guy so I borrowed your photo albeit with diminished pixels:


My biggest challenge was the eyes on Joan and Doug. I ended up using yours but here's an earlier attempt that illustrates the hazards of enhancing eyes too much - so what do Joannie and Doug have on their minds now?

Bob,

Yeah, that's OK, you can use mine. I should have a copy here someplace without "The Giant" logo that you can use. I told people about your site on TCM CFU, TCM Forums, and a couple other places. Hopefully they will start checking it out.

Here is another still that looks a little like Two-Color Technicolor. Wasn't done by me. Not sure where it came from? Odd's are pretty strong that you have not seen the likes of it before. Same thing with Anita's eyes, or pretty close.




"Gee, I Hates Being Panned!"

Phototone wrote:The thing about colorizing photos from the 1920's, is that the film professional photographers used was orthochromatic, not panchromatic, therefore the colors of the original scene were not rendered in accurate monochrome values, thus making colorizing look artificial in many instances.

Admittedly, orthochromatic film doesn't make the task of the colorist easier but a lot also depends on the number of generations away from an original the source material is. As example, here is a detail from a photo taken in 1919 and scanned from an 8x10 work negative. Doug Fairbanks and Winifred Westover in KNICKERBOCKER BUCKAROO. Not bad I think:

Great work, guys. Now if there were only some computer software to automate most of the colorization process so that reels of film, not just photos, could be converted to color. In one part of DVD Savant's review (at DVDTalk) of The Reel Thing technical symposium he just attended, Glenn Erickson reports on the presentation of the developers of the Automatic Dust Removal digital tool, software that removes print flaws. That would be something, to be able to use a home PC with a fast CPU to process silent film video footage any way you want, as long as the software is doing the grunt work. Why be limited to colorizing single prints, which right now must be very time consuming? Ciao.

momsne wrote:Great work, guys. Now if there were only some computer software to automate most of the colorization process so that reels of film, not just photos, could be converted to color. In one part of DVD Savant's review (at DVDTalk) of The Reel Thing technical symposium he just attended, Glenn Erickson reports on the presentation of the developers of the Automatic Dust Removal digital tool, software that removes print flaws. That would be something, to be able to use a home PC with a fast CPU to process silent film video footage any way you want, as long as the software is doing the grunt work. Why be limited to colorizing single prints, which right now must be very time consuming? Ciao.

Well, I'm not going to restart the old debate of "to color or not to color," but I will say that colorizing a photo is a different matter, both artistically and aesthetically, from colorizing a motion picture. However, it is worth noting that ALL color processes outside of Mother Nature are artificial. The advent of color film was only a technological update of the stenciling process that speeded up a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Basically, color film substituted an optical-chemical process for the earlier manual-mechanical process. Both were (and are) artificial. I think the most valid criticism of colorizing that I've ever heard is that images designed to be rendered in gray tones should not be transformed into the color spectrum. Yet I've never heard anybody complain when a b/w still from a color film is used, yet it should cause the same criticism that the filmmaker's work is being disrespected. And as I've noted previously, MANY b/w films were not exactly "designed" for graytones but were b/w by default. The Laurel & Hardy films are a good example of a utilitarian, non-artistic use of b/w. Of course, it didn't help the debate that efforts to colorize the L&H films were lousy. Likewise, I readily accept criticism that my color photos are badly done, but not criticism that I added color regardless of the quality of the work product. In the end, I blame the film industry itself for giving me the idea - all those color lobby cards and color glass slides and color posters, all taken from b/w white photos. You know what's really artificial? B/W photos. Even a superb example with great fleshtones is false - nobody has gray flesh tones.