RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Latchfordian on Wednesday 14 October 20 09:24 BST (UK)
-
I've taken advantage of the COVID restrictions to get round to something I've been meaning to do for years ........ sorting and scanning the many 100s of B+W photos that my family has accumulated over many years. I tried a few on colourising software and I've been really impressed at what it can do with the inbuilt artificial intelligence. However, I really am undecided as to whether this is a good thing to do as those B+W photos reflect a certain era and colourising them does, to my mind, lose their authenticity. I know it's a matter of personal choice but I'd like to hear what other people think.
-
Personally I would leave them black and white for authenticity. If you have any duplicates or very similar photos then no harm colouring one of them to have the best of both worlds.
-
If you've scanned them, so they are electronic and there is nothing to stop you having a b&w copy ANDa colour copy. Personally, I wouldn't ONLY keep the colourised version.
-
It's only wrong if the coloured picture is used to deceive. I think most people can tell
that a photograph has been artificially enhanced by colour. If not then their education is
sadly lacking. The same applies to restorations. As soon as you alter the picture, you
are in effect altering an historic document. That is why I often put on "that this picture
is a reconstruction and may not be a correct representation" Of course how the owner
uses that picture is up to them, but it is a worry. But it is now becoming increasing
popular to colourise photographs and films especially WW1
-
It is entirely your personal choice.
Personally I'm against colourisation, the original sepia and black and white photos are appropriate to the times they were taken. Very early coloured photos were hand coloured black and white photos so not true colours anyway.
Some of the best professional photos taken today are in black and white, they are considered to superior to coloured photography.
-
I think a copy of the black and white original should always be retained.
However, it is amazing how much people 'come to life' in a beautifully colourised version, and this can very much help you understand them as people rather than simply images which don't relate as much to you.
The (relatively) recent colourisation/adjustment of speed in the WWI film They Shall Not Grow Old - which was very carefully and consciously done - made a huge impact on me, over and above the many black and white images I have seen over the years.
It is entirely up to the eye of the beholder, that's just my opinion.
-
Personally, I prefer my old photos in B&W or sepia but I would colour them, if requested by owners. However, I try to find out the colours of the period.
Some colourization in violent colours make me shudder :-X
Gadget
-
Personally, I prefer my old photos in B&W or sepia but I would colour them, if requested by owners. However, I try to find out the colours of the period.
Some colourization in violent colours make me shudder :-X
Gadget
I mentioned 'beautifully colourised version' in my original post, and that description most definitely included you, Gadget, and the wonderful RC Photo Board contributors ;D.
-
I wouldn't want a photo colourised. As Gadget said, many are awful and unless the person who is doing the colouring knows the exact colour of hair, eyes and clothes it isn't true to life. On another forum someone put up a colourised photo of a soldier for identification. It was pointed out that the colour of the uniform didn't match the hat badge, so was totally wrong.
What annoys me most though is people who take it upon themselves to colour a photo which perhaps has been submitted for dating, without asking permission.
The trouble is there is a new App which colours and people think it is fine to use and that it will be correct. I know from what people have said before on here that to do it properly takes hours, not seconds!
-
The trouble is there is a new App which colours and people think it is fine to use and that it will be correct. I know from what people have said before on here that to do it properly takes hours, not seconds!
Sometimes days or weeks. groom.
I recall doing a colouring for Ricky many years ago - maybe it was the year before he died. It was of his parents' wedding and included all the close family. I had to do it 'off board' because some relatives were still living. One of the relatives knew the personal colouring and the colours of the clothing so it was possible to get fairly accurate colouring. It took me the best part of a month off and on. I gave up counting the number of colour masks that I used.
-
Could I just add that the wonder of seeing a black and white image slowly appear in the developer tray is something that I still miss since the advent of digital photography. Developing coloured film just wasn't as fulfilling either!
-
My preference as many others have stated is to not colourise photos, I would add however that if a photo is coloured I feel it should be noted on the photo that it has been coloured.
I have also noted that in some cases a back & white or greyscale photo has more impact than a colour photo.
Cheers
Guy
-
It is a matter of personal choice, as people have said.
I have been impressed by colourised film (of the Great War, royal processions and so on) but I am not a fan of colourised photographs. My opinion is that studio portraits should always be left in their original colour (b&w or sepia) as should every monochrome photograph where the balance of light and shade adds to the quality of the image.
I only tidy up damage on the photos I have taken or inherited (and ask for help when my skills are insufficient) with just one exception - a photo of my mum as a bridesmaid in 1938 for which she described in detail the colours of the dress, shoes, and posy, then wistfully remarked "Oh I wish I could see this in colour." Thanks to one of the many amazing Rootschatters on this board, her wish was granted and a lovely framed A4 interpretation now hangs in her sitting room.
Philip
-
Colouring is a gimmick and should only ever be seen in that way. I enjoy doing them and take pains to get them as accurate as possible.... where its possible (only yesterday I googled a 1960s sewing machine to get the correct colour!). People that request them seem to enjoy the process so in that way, its a win win. Never discard the original, would always be my advice. It can never be replaced and also, who knows what software is around the corner to further blow our minds?
At the moment, AI colouring is complete tosh in my opinion, but who knows what the future holds?
Remini can be a useful tool in small doses but because of how it works, its over-use is worrying.
Having said all that, I often take photos and desaturate them to B/W because for some pics, you can't beat the impact.
As for colouring pics without permission, well as far as I am concerned, if someone posts a pic on the internet, for me its open season. They are perfectly at liberty not to download it and if they are so offended, they can just ask for it to be removed, I have no problem with that.
-
You have to remember that a B&W photograph, in itself, is artificial as the subject
matter when the picture is taken wasn't B&W but full of colours.
So a B&W photograph is not capturing the truth anyway. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ne'er mind eh!!!!
-
This photo of my mum and dad was colourised (is that the right word) at the time, 1941. I think it would have been painted, not sure.
Everything you`re saying goes over my head !!
-
I am in favour of authenticity when it comes to historical images and I leave my own photos as they are, as they have their own kind of beauty and value. I really enjoy colouring photos but don't use the photo enhancing apps as I feel they often look artificial and in some instances, they lose their depth and texture and in my opinion, are not in the true sense of the word, restorations, but each to his own.
I colour photos here mainly when it's requested but have done some that I think will colour well, when it hasn't been requested, but I often tell the poster that they don't need to have it if they don't want. I also make it clear that it is an artistic interpretation and as such, it's a piece of fiction.
I hand colour using information from my books to try to capture the era of the time. My most hated phrase when I have restored or coloured a photo is "It looks like new" ::)
When people request a coloured version, they do so to identify with the sitter and try to find a likeness between family members.
I would hate to see photo enhancing apps and colouring apps take over the board as that would be a huge shame for those of us who hand repair and colour with accuracy, patience and skill and would greatly devalue what we do and would probably mean that the board would eventually lose it's value :-\
Carol
-
This photo of my mum and dad was colourised (is that the right word) at the time, 1941. I think it would have been painted, not sure.
Everything you`re saying goes over my head !!
I have a wedding photo of my parents and in-laws from the same era, on the back is written hair and eye colour etc. and were referred to as Hand Tinted as many photographers were also artists.
Carol
-
I have so many copies of this photo, large and small, but I`m pretty sure there`s no description on them. They had been married 73 years when my Mum passed away.
-
Some time in the early 1960's I was talking to a girl of around 12 who had a Saturday job in a photographer's shop/studio.
She was learning how to hand colour photos amongst other tasks.
I just accepted this without any further useful questions. I think she had brought in 2 photos to show people what she had been doing.
-
I find that colouring artificially is necessary to delineate objects when Sharpening has reached its limits and Contrast fails to show where one object ends and the other starts. The low resolution jpegs which blend grayscale to the point of losing definition need colour to show the shapes of otherwise undetectable edges. Badly faded old photos benefit from colour and I usually overcolour them because it is a doddle for anybody interested to turn the Hue down to what they think is acceptable.
Here's an example, Threlfallyorky's mum and her companion and little lambs eating ivy. The lady on the right was better lit and defined and even though I isolated the dark haired lady on the left and tried to improve her to the same level as the one on the right ... in grayscale it still didn't look good enough, but added colour Helped to define them, not perfect, but an improvement, I think ....
-
I would rather the b&w myself but like others have said there’s nothing wrong with having a colour version of the photo too if ya want. All boils down to personal preference in my opinion. Cheers
-
I do like colouring the photos I have restored. I sometimes find the use of colour defines some details in areas that are not obvious in a black and white photo. Like Carol, I do not use a colourising app or a photo enhancing app. I try to get the correct colours by researching images where possible and then hand colouring the photo which can sometimes take a lot of time.
I would hope that whoever posts the photos would keep their original photo along side the restored and coloured versions. I also agree with Carol that the continued use of the colourising and enhancing apps could mean that this great restoring feature on Rootschat could eventually lose its true value.
Pat
-
How many restorers use layers?
Sorry - I pressed before I'd finished!
When I started using PS in the 1990s, there were no facility to layer, and be able to get depth. etc. in different areas, changing various aspects. In those days, it was a bit like painting by numbers. Gradually PS improved and introduced different features, including the ability to use layering - a bit like stacking transparent sheets on top of each other, treating various parts of the image in different ways.
-
How many restorers use layers?
All the time.
-
How many restorers use layers?
All the time.
I can tell you do Andy - your restores have depth. I posted before I meant to and have added more to my previous post :)
-
Thank you for the many replies to my post, all of which I found interesting. The consensus of opinion seems to be to colour the B+W photos if you really want to but never get rid of the originals. Very sensible advice. Thanks again.
-
Like Gadget I recall well the almost magical experience of developing a black and white photograph myself, when I was at College, and my personal feeling is that if the original is black and white, so it should stay! That is part of its charm, as well as true to its period.
In the early period of widespread and relatively cheap colour film, there was a mix of colour and black and white being taken, the colour prints are often found to have faded, and the black and white really don't look the same when "colourised".
My parents dashed quickly into the 35mm transparency pics, and I recall evenings with projector and screen, of varying interest as they and their friends showed the "holiday pics". My father averred that the transparencies were far better than colour film prints. A few years ago I idly opened one of the many boxes of his slides, and .... well, quite a few were fading, and bits of fluff and hairs and scratches on the others......
I'd love to be able to do the restoration miracles you do here. Many years ago I restored some scratched and damaged B & W film negatives, and a couple of plates with a really fine brush and a small jar of "photopaque" I believe it was, as I had such good eyesight close to, and that was very satisfying. I really ought to try and find out more, but time isn't infinite, and that took me ages to do really well.
I'm no expert, but I'd stand up on the "No" side.
-
If photography had colour film in it's early days, I don't think that anybody would have
chosen B&W except as a curiosity. ;D ;D ;D Think how many films are made today
in B&W except for minority audiences. How many patrons would the great artists have
attracted if they had painted their commissions in B&W. Just a thought ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The current trend in home decor just now is Grey, Black and White and my Daughter has had some of her favourite photos of her two girls reproduced in black & white printed onto canvas and they look stunning. She is an amateur photographer and prefers her photos in Black & White. My wedding photos are in black and white as coloured photos for weddings at the time were not readily available
Carol
-
My wedding photos are in black and white as coloured photos for weddings at the time were not readily available
Carol
That's what I said! Colour photography was not available in Victorian times. ::) ::) ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D and ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oooo! :o Hush your mouth TK :-X...you are off my Christmas list now :P ;D ;D ;D
Carol
-
Victorian - he remembers the Regency :-X ::)
-
! I like it!
-
hush yer mouth! I was taking Carols wedding pics ;D ;D ;D And she still hasn't paid me :o :o :o
I am not amused as my good friend Vicky would say :P :P :P :P
-
Give us a chance will ya...they have only just come out of the oven ::) ;D ;D ;D
'ere you go...get your laughing chops round these beauties ;D
Carol
-
Such artistry, such beauty, Leonardo couldn't have painted a better picture
of delectable still life such as this. Is their an emoji for drooling ??? ??? ???
And imagine if this work of art was B&W Yuck!!!!!!!!
-
My personal preference is to leave them black and white. A well coloured photograph can be pleasing to the eye but it loses the atmosphere and sense of history in the process. I have reversed the process in my own collection - some of my photos were coloured at the time that they were taken and they look awful so I have converted them back to black and white.
-
A well coloured photograph can be pleasing to the eye but it loses the atmosphere and sense of history in the process.
Just saw this in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/21/english-heritage-colours-the-past-before-and-after (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/21/english-heritage-colours-the-past-before-and-after)
Maybe not strictly relevant to this topic, as these are not photos of family and ancestors, but, .... fits in well with Elliven's comment.
Bob
-
some of my photos were coloured at the time that they were taken and they look awful so I have converted them back to black and white.
Therefore you have altered a historic picture to suit your preference ???
-
It's all about personal preference, many people who post photos on here and request colour, do so because they think it brings the subjects to life. Many want to connect with their ancestors to see if there is any family resemblance and colouring often does that. They still have the original photo for future reference.
Carol
-
I think Carol has hit the nail on the head. It is all a matter of personal preference AND you still have the original photo so there is nothing lost. I have seen examples of her work and they are superb but I have also seen examples of a local "expert" and they are awful with colours that are often too intense and look as bad as some of the wartime hand coloured photos like my parents' wedding photos where my Dad had pink cheeks! (Normal for him was suntanned from working outside).
-
Tomkin is just stirring it.
:-X ;D :-X
-
I tried the reverse here with a pic of me mum. So the one on the left was coloured by hand back in the 1940s and the photo I remember looking at as a child. Out of curiosity, I did a quick converted to b/w (& sepia) in photoshop.
Since the hand-coloured version brings back fond memories growing up, it's the one I prefer for this particular photo.
Generally, I prefer sepia - but yeah, it's a personal preference.