And to think we brought how many of those German scientists and brilliant minds back to America? Color or not whose bright idea was this?

No.1 - heart catching...

Those were fun. Txs

Thank you. Your lack of any proof of your accusations made it inevitable. The only force behind your argument was arrogant condescension, and that doesn't cut it here.

I've seen some art in woodwork furniture designed and made for the purpose of art. Beautiful things. They were not utilitarian products, they were one of's that could never be made again.

Clearly, you have no concept of what I am trying to convey. I am NOT advocating theft. You obviously vehemently dislike the colorization of historical images originally shot in another media and are leveling accusations of theft to censure the effort when you haven't offered a single iota of proof that theft has taken place. Translating historical photographs to color images is no different than translating historical written works to modern English or any other language. Also, 3D technology is being developed to add a whole new dimension to historical 2D images, but don't let that keep you up at night.

Don't know who Brett Weston is, but if he wanted to destroy his negatives then that's his prerogative and if you wish to destroy yours then that is yours. Those 29 images made their way into the public domain and I'm glad they did. I'm also glad the art of colorization was added to them. The artists that added color to this collection did a splendid job.

Oh, a photograph taken by an unnamed nobody is just an ordinary every-day photograph, but a photograph taken by you or somebody you know is "art"? BS.

IMHO, fine "art" photography takes place mostly two ways. 1) The photographer has a very good understanding of the SCIENCE of what it takes to obtain the desired image and uses that science to best advantage, 2) The photographer is in the right place at the right time with the right equipment and snaps the picture. Those 29 images fall in one category or the other.

Another silly rant based upon something I did not say nor advocate. Be very careful when you say "so you are saying" and then spew a bunch of blather that wasn't said. Citation for the original photograph, if possible, or even permission if the original photographer is still around is likely the legal recourse (I am NOT a lawyer) and be the right thing to do. You have to be careful here though, because if these photographs are art as you advocate, then you have to realize these colorizations are not being perpetrated on the originals but on copies, as in painting a mustache on a picture of the Mona Lisa, but not on the original. Many historical photographs photographers identities are lost to antiquity, so who do you ask? Who do you cite? Most Daguerreotypes in my collection have no information regarding who took them, so do I bury them somewhere because I can't cite origin and I'd be stealing if I digitize them to share without some kind of permission? I know a WWII veteran who has some very historical images of the death camps, but won't say who took them and they are not marked. Should they be discarded or never published because the original photographer can't be cited or paid?

What of old faded or damaged images that can be restored or enhanced by digitization techniques including colorization and there is no one around to ask or cite?

By now you must realize that I'm not buying into your accusation that image colorization is necessarily a form of theft. If you are going to accuse theft, you better be ready to prove it.

David: You're entitled to your opinion, for sure, but with all due respect your silly rant goes nowhere with me. I will decide for myself what imagery I prefer. Many of these images are enhanced and made much more "real" or pleasing to the eye IN MY OPINION. Others, such as yourself have their own OPINIONS. I've taken many color and b&w images and developed them. I've built a replica 1859 sliding box camera and created ambrotypes and ferrotypes. I also have no problem digitally converting color or b&w images to sepia or other "monotone" colorations if the image pleases me to do so. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what I do is somehow wrong, other than your OPINION. Also, yes color film was in existence when many of these b&w images were made, but color was expensive and difficult to work with and journalistic photography was mainly destined to printed in b&w newspapers or magazines, so the expense of color was not justified. When the cost of color imagery (photography as well as printing) came down it virtually supplanted b&w, meaning it was highly preferred. Proof it is a very safe bet to say if many of the photographers that took these images in b&w would have used color if they could have. My OPINION.

If black and white is to be colorized I prefer it side by side as done in most of these. Black and white is always more provocative because our senses are more alert when we see black and white. Black, white, gray...the colors of the night when the moonlight washes almost all color away creates a hyper-sensitivity to the world around us. A niggling of dread/alertness at the nape of the neck if we venture into unknown territory without the benefit of color. That being said, photos of events are often best left in their original form. Portraits are not as important. I am not qualified to venture into the art of this subject.

I appreciate your passion. I remember being upset when some black and white movies were being colorized. Thank you.

I find the original black and white of Goebbels (#8) to be far more powerful, as the added color distracts from the pure evil delivered in his glare.

Is it wrong to look at it? I understand your point about how some photographs and films for that matter were shot in black and white on purpose. Colorizing these photos and especially in the case where they show both photos exposes them to many of us who had never seen them before.

I see your point. and hey! glad to see you in here!
but all artists are building on other people's stuff. It's the process of creation. I'm not making the case they are all good art, and criticism is essential.
You and I would NOT agree with Rand here, in The Romantic Manifesto:

"A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful—but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art."