|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Colourising? Restoration or Abomination (Read 529 times)
|
g a r
RootsChat Aristocrat
 Offline
Posts: 1587
|
This seems to be a "hot button" topic and I'm curious about that.
I realize that this forum is called photographic restoration. And I can see where perhaps colourising isn't strictly restoring. So maybe there should be a forum for colourising.
I'd hate to think that rootschat was losing members because of clashes in photo preferences. 
Our ancestors lived in colour at least six out of seven days. (I'm sure "Sunday Best" involved some black and white.) 
The photos we have of them are limited by the technology of the times. I'll bet they would have had colour pictures done if there was the technology and the cost wasn't prohibitive.
So, for myself, I'm not against colourising. But maybe it isn't restoration in the strictest sense of the word.
cheers,
skooner
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vhansen
RootsChat Member
Offline
Posts: 122
|
As someone who frequently colors images, I would say that colorizing is an "enhancement", and not a restoration. I'm a bit surprised that there is controversy, as any color image can easily returned to b&w, if one prefers. What I find bothersome, is when artist effects are applied.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Man of Kent
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 507
|
MMmm
Being a newbie,I'd like to add my opinion.
Much depends on the person asking for the image to be restored, many images are beyond help it seems till they post on here.
To be fair the option is theirs, and they normally get a choice to choose from anyway.
People are naturally in colour not sepia or Black and White, so in effect colorization is restoration in the true sense.
From what I have seen the reaction is positive, and we are keeping alive an old tradition.
Artificially colouring photo's, something our ancestors did. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kizmiaz
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1282
Me, aged 4, just starting out on The Dusty Trail
|
This reminds me of the days when "The European" newspaper was being launched. So many criticisms of it for using colour in a newspaper. Most of the other newspapers seemed to think it was not right somehow to see the images in the news in anything other than black and white, and poked fun at it. But now, 20 years later, there is not a single national newspaper (well maybe the FT) which doesn't use full colour wherever it can.
I have to agree that some pictures do look better as sepia images. I have yet to see a single picture which looks better in black and white though. I find it much too harsh and cold, and if I am restoring a BW image I always add a slight colour to it to warm it up a bit. Even this depends on the image itself. Some get warmed by brown, some by green and some look better with a hint of blue, which logically should cool down the image but often has the reverse effect.
Strictly speaking, colourising is not restoration. But also, strictly speaking, cropping and re-framing is also not restoration. How many ancient monuments are "restored" by having bits removed from them? Cropping is an attempt to improve on what is already there by removing what we consider superfluous, and to re-interpret the original intention of the photographer. This is a long way from restoration.
If we were only here to restore images, then turning them from sepia or any of the colours they may now appear into black and white images would be frowned upon. Most of these pictures would not have been black and white as we now know it but a subtle shade of any of a thousand different colours depending on format, paper, and developing method, so is it not as inappropriate to remove this colour as it is to add new ones?
We now have ready access to technology which allows us to not simply restore, but to enhance images. If someone would like to see Great Aunt Maude as she looked in life, we can do so. There is no harm in doing so, and actually the reverse. I'm sure that many more people are now rooting through their family albums looking for a picture to improve, and as such are rediscovering their ancestry, and also the reason these pictures were taken in the first place; to connect that moment in time with anyone in the future who sees the photo.
(Actually taking a paint brush to the photo of Great Aunt Maude itself and painting over that, however, should be a crime punishable by the most extreme measures, but altering a digital image of that is not harming anything tangible at all)
As Skooner says, our ancestors would almost certainly have had colour photographs taken if they could, and often had their pictures tinted, some more professionally than others, to add what science could not yet give them. No portrait painter worth his salt would have used just shades of gray to paint, so it is unlikely that our ancestors had any problem at all in seeing themselves in full colour.
I do think that a lot of pictures look better as sepia images and will leave them exactly as they were (or exactly as they were plus any repair work). I also think that movies look better when shot on film rather than video, but my enjoyment of the image in front of my eye is not tainted by the method of presentation. A good image is a good image and should be enjoyed as such.
Colourised or not, sepia or BW, enlarged or reduced, cropped, straightened, sharpened and generally messed around with. We can do all of these things to images, and its a matter of personal expression how we interpret those images. The results may not always be to our own liking, but others may like them or even be inspired by them to create something else.
The only situations we should be careful of are when someone has expressly asked NOT to have an image altered beyond simple repair, or if we start to mess with the image in such a way as to hurt the feelings of the person who has posted it.
So, after all that babble, I guess what I am trying to say is that no, strictly speaking colourising is not restoration, but that almost everything Photoshop or Paintshop does to an image is also not restoration, but adjustment and improvement, neither of which is a bad thing.
And it is certainly not an abomination. Far from it!
I will probably stick to colourising pictures when the original post requests it from now on though. It does seem to be a rather devisive issue and one which is really rather pointless in the grand scheme of life!
(Phew. Glad I got that off my chest)
Glen (with rather too much caffeine in his bloodstream!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Sussex - Robins, Willis, Hills, Winchester, Harwood, Breden, Jupp, Matthews, Windsor, Dove, Duly, Baker and lots more. In London - Scully, Day, Emery, Alger All Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
g a r
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1587
|
Eloquent statements all!
skooner
in rainy Manitoba
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MancsMan
RootsChat Aristocrat
 Online
Posts: 1741
Was he right or was he wrong
|
Why is it a hot topic?
We all do r best - we all have r preferences - we all learn off each other
end of story
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hilton - Wiltshire,Prestwich Manchester Millington-Manchester, Birmingham Harris - Manchester, Salford, Southern Rhodesia, Aston Manor Birmingham, Temple Balsall, Knowle. Jones-Higher Broughton, Cheetham Hill, Denbighshire Lawton - Prestwich, Manchester Smith-Manchester Carey - Manchester Cotterell - Lambeth, London Fletcher-Middleton, Manchester Capper - Manchester Census info is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
kizmiaz
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1282
Me, aged 4, just starting out on The Dusty Trail
|
You're right Meldrew, colourising is just a bit of fun. None of us can know the original colours of any picture unless we were there at the time, so we just do what we can to make the image look good to our modern eyes. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes one person will look at a picture and think "Hmm, I like that" while another will think "Hmm, it looks better as it was". And that's part of the fun.
I'm not sure if a seperate section for colourising is needed though. Most pictures here seem to get colourised after being repaired, so newcomers may get confused about whether they should post in the repair section, or the colourise section if they want both.
Perhaps a gallery section may be an idea to consider. A place where we can post our re-interpretations of photos (if the original owner doesn't mind, that is), and colourise, merge, blend, paint and customize images to our hearts content, and where interested parties can view them.
How about an occasional "colourising challenge"? Someone could post a good clean picture and those that want to join in get free rein to make the most of it. I'm sure we'd see some quite outlandish creations then!
(BTW Mike, I'm glad you decided to stay. As one of the great unsung heroes in this world, a full-time Carer, you surely deserve somewhere to relax and have a bit of fun. And it looks like you're developing a new skill with Blackmagic, not the most user friendly piece of software I've ever seen. Good luck to you)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Sussex - Robins, Willis, Hills, Winchester, Harwood, Breden, Jupp, Matthews, Windsor, Dove, Duly, Baker and lots more. In London - Scully, Day, Emery, Alger All Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 922
|
I feel that all photos that have been colourised etc. should have the date of alteration added somewhere on the image.
The reason I mention this is now that printers are improving and now that it is possible to obtain shop prints of digital images there is the potential for confusion.
Imagine a person finding a colour photo of your great grandad in 100 years time and mistaking him for your son as the photo is in colour rather than black & white.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MancsMan
RootsChat Aristocrat
Online
Posts: 1741
Was he right or was he wrong
|
First off you have no chance of getting another forum, we tried that for (gravestone/graves). I will post links from mods if you want?
I fully agree with meldrew as well it is a bit of fun - but this seems to stem from me placing a black & white picture back in a posting the person asked for colour and me saying it looks better in B&W ---- | That is my own thoughts for that picture |
What I dont expect is a comment put into a totally different posting stating they asked for colour (I can read) and then a PM sent to me, this really bl**dy annoyed me - here is that PM I was going to delete it R but what the h*ll
*********************************************************************
Sorry, I had a bad case of brain not in gear syndrome. On another string you expressed your preference for black and white over re-colouring.
My comment was meant to address this, in that the member concerned had requested colour, and it was not just a whim of us over eager learners to impose our efforts on the unsuspecting public.
I find the Photo Message board most interesting and I have learned a great deal from the excellent submisssions by other members. Maybe one day I will master it.
Like you I find Blackmagic does not do the job, I like Photoshop. I paint where I dont mean to, and the presets are too vivid and need adjsutment.
*********************************************************************
Mike believe me I can read and write dont suffer memory loss or impose myself, and like you I have to look after my wife who has MS & and a really nasty condition called RSD, so we all have are problems in life. But at the end of the day you have your preference and I have mine - and hopfully the twain shall never cross again.
I do not and have never passed a bad comment about an colour/repair/restoration job uploaded, and I would expect the same from the other members unless I asked in the posting for it which I did in the past.
This one forum is good for everything - 1 original picture 10/20 versions of it be it colour/b&W/sepia or abstract if thats what you like - the owner at the end of the day will only keep what they like
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Thursday 15 September 05 23:11 BST (UK) by sarah »
|
Logged
|
Hilton - Wiltshire,Prestwich Manchester Millington-Manchester, Birmingham Harris - Manchester, Salford, Southern Rhodesia, Aston Manor Birmingham, Temple Balsall, Knowle. Jones-Higher Broughton, Cheetham Hill, Denbighshire Lawton - Prestwich, Manchester Smith-Manchester Carey - Manchester Cotterell - Lambeth, London Fletcher-Middleton, Manchester Capper - Manchester Census info is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
deadants
Moderator
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 897
|
Well, you have been busy while I've been away. This is the situation re. Colourising. All the photos that are posted to the photo Restoration forum are only digital copies. The original photos are still safely stored at the owners residence or somewhere safe. Now I'm thinking along the line of Vhansen here, If a photo is colourised and people don't like it than it's a simple matter of hitting the desaturate menu, no more colour.
I like the idea of a gallery. This gives a good place to show all the before and after results. I also like the idea of a monthly challenge. Also, Guy Etchells has a good point regarding the dating. This of course would have to be up to the person who owns the picture. Plus if these before and afters were to go into a gallery of some sort, a date of the restoration/colourising would seem appropriate.
So in summary no harm has been done to the originals as these are only digital copies. And as far as I know to date there has been no conplaints from any person who has posted an image for restortation or colourising. So there you have it! Fun for some, therapy for others. It's a learning experience we can all enjoy.
Deadants
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cleary, Doran, Boland, McCooey, McManus, O'brien, Martin, Savage, Wallis, McCollister, Wood. (More to come soon)
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
