Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by JerseyBoy 11 years, 8 months ago
    "There was color film already in existence when lots of these photographs were taken."

    Except it was expensive to manufacture; most cameras that shot B&W were not able to shoot color negative because until Kodak invented integral tri-pack film — with the cyan/magena/yellow dye emulsion layers sandwiched together into one strip of film — color film existed as three separate strips, each strip sensitive to a primary color. Prior to Kodak's technological innovation in the 1950s, photographers — especially in photo-journalism — shot B&W mainly because of technical limitations and economics.

    "It is not a case of, 'the photographer would have taken that in color if he could have'. NO HE WOULDN'T!!! Not ever! "

    Sure he would. And the evidence that color was greatly desired in pictures of real life is the indisputable fact that painters used color to render scenes of real life: portraits, street scenes, social gathering scenes, etc. No great painter in the past ever chose grayscale to render realistic images.

    You're just a B&W bigot. There are many such in the field of photography; and (as I've learned) mainly for one simple reason: most photographers don't know how to work with color effectively.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 8 months ago
    David, do you think that the credit given to the original photographer, clearly distinguishing it from the work of the colorizer, makes a difference in the property issue?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Comment deleted.
      -
    • Posted by mccannon01 11 years, 9 months ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Comment deleted.
          -
        • Posted by mccannon01 11 years, 9 months ago
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Comment deleted.
              -
            • Posted by mccannon01 11 years, 9 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Comment deleted.
                • Posted by mccannon01 11 years, 9 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 9 months ago
      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."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 9 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 9 months ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Comment deleted.
        -
      • Comment deleted.
          -
        • Comment deleted.
            -
          • Comment deleted.
              -
            • Comment deleted.
                -
              • Posted by khalling 11 years, 8 months ago
                Plusaf, Im not in this fight but patents are limited. The "life " is short in human terms
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Comment deleted.
                    -
                  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 8 months ago
                    yes, copyright law is a little screwed up. I think it should be the life of the creator. I think one reason is politics. The original thought process was reasonable time period to get a reasonable return. Our last copyright laws were passed because we had some Disney characters getting ready to expire. ;)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Comment deleted.
                  -
                • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 8 months ago
                  I am curious to get your opinion on another story that was in the news recently. Negatives from Sir Ernest Shackeltons Antartica exploration were found and developed. They were 100 years old. The natural
                  assumption is that the groups photographer took the photos. Should they have been released?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    -
                  • Comment deleted.
                      -
                    • Comment deleted.
              -
            • Comment deleted.
                -
              • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 9 months ago
    Interesting thanks. Some random comments:

    3. Japanese archers. Something is wrong with the poses, do not seem right re aiming and power.

    17. The auto wreck. There are five men doing nothing, two of them are black wearing different hats from the whites. Am I the only one who looks for this kind of thing?

    23. Self immolation. Horrible. But at least a point is made without taking bystanders as is the modern fashion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KYFHO 11 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 11 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by JerseyBoy 11 years, 8 months ago
    "You are wrong on all counts. Kodachrome came out in 1935 and was certainly not too expensive to use."

    I can see already that I'm wasting my valuable time challenging someone who is clueless.

    We're not talking about Kodachrome. Koda-CHROME — as the suffix indicates — is a color REVERSAL process . . . meaning, no negative is created as a final result from which one strikes positive prints. We're talking about color NEGATIVE. If you don't understand the difference between color-negative film and color-reversal film (e.g., Koda-CHROME, Fuji-CHROME, Agfa-CHROME, etc.) then you understand nothing about the technical aspect of photography, and nothing about its history.

    Finally, we're not talking about "art" photographers. We're talking about photo-journalists. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you also don't understand the photography business.

    The first color photographs were negative-positive process and derived from the color-theory work of physicist James Clerk Maxwell. The first color photograph ever taken, apparently, was by him. It's called "Tartan Ribbon". See:

    http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_p/1_photog...

    and,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tartan...

    Bye!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Comment deleted.

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo