Coloring; Colorizing; Colorization
 

What ever you call it, adding color to old photographs, whether Black & White, sepia toned, or some other half-toned process, is sure to raise howls of protest from purists. The debate will never end, but I don't see the problem in playing with a copy as long as the original is unharmed. Even photographs of great historical significance.

This picture of Mata Hari, from 1910, prompted such a discussion bitch fest. I like it in full color. The color brings out the detail, makes it more lush, and of course it's boner better.:blush:

Walter Cronkite and one of the bomber crews he covered as a war correspondent. On D-Day he flew in the nose bubble of Shoo Shoo Baby but the clouds were so thick they couldn't find the target and had to turn back. Normally they would have dumped the bomb load blind over enemy territory, or over the channel if there was a danger to the French civilians, but they were under strict orders not to do that because of the 82nd and 101st paratroopers on the ground and wall to wall ships in the channel. So they had to land in the mud in England with a live bomb load.

With an open fly?

A lot depends on the skill of the colorist and the lighting of the original B&W. A high-key film noir would probably suffer from the attempt at colorization as would all of Ansel Adams's work, for example.

I first posted the colour version of this image in the Aircraft thread back in January.
I thought that it might be worthwhile posting it again with the B&W original alongside.

Attachment 57188 Attachment 57189

I always wonder, are they randomly guessing on the base colors (like the blue lettering,) or have they done their research to figure out that it really was some shade of blue?

I thought maybe the minute differences in shades of gray may give clues as to what the actual color was.

Maybe it's just the experience of the colorist's eye...

Attachment 57198

Attachment 57199

There is some additional photoshoppery going on here. Guess they couldn't figure out what color that stuff should be.

Well spotted, sir!

You might be interested in these photos of the western US taken between 1864 and 1910 and converted by the same chap.
The article doesn't show the B&W image but the coloured versions are eye catching to say the least. LINK.

The whole process is kind of interesting. I think some of the colors are wrong. The distant background is fairly green, but I think it is winter time from the heavy coats. It should be gray in the distance. Also, there is what appears to be a puddle to the right of the guy with his back to us, and it is colored brown. I thing that is ice from something dripping in a puddle and freezing, so it should be more of a whitish gray color. Not brown.

I think the background is fog, but yes, greenish. I also think the "puddle is a patch of snow/ice with sand/dirt blown on it. The difficulty of picking out these details is exactly what's lacking in old B&W pictures, but they did show what they intended for you to see, the main objects.

Very cool. Thanks.:)

I can't get to that link, must be some kind of flash or something.

When I was a kid one of my friends mom use to color b&w's at home, all portraits as I remember. She used a q-tip and I thought she did a great job but I was 13 yrs old

Exactly my thought -not the bit you pointed out particularly but it's just not "right"