Some more hand coloured photos

pullandbang

Here's another batch of hand coloured pics to stir a bit of controversy. I have to say I like some of them - those that aren't overcooked and bordering on HDR.

http://irisharchaeology.ie/2012/11/photos-of-ireland-in-the-1930s-the-past-if-a-foreign-country/

Effects

I guess you have to treat this work very differently. It's coming from a time when there were no colour photographs. Maybe the over saturated colours gave the same effect as over cooked HDR does these days.

Shinaynay

These are hideous.

thatsnotmyname

They look like they have been Instagramed:D

kelly1

Shinaynay wrote: »

These are hideous.

Not quite hideous I'd say but more like garish. Actually, quite revolting

AnCatDubh

*shudders*

yeah baby

thebouldwhacker

Not sure I understand where the negativity is coming from, these pics are a cross between photos and paintings.
Imho these give a great record of 1930's Ireland which is normally portrayed as being a desperately poor and unfortunate society.
Also I see the quality as pretty good for the time and technology. The photographers have obvious skill allowing for a good explanation of the subjects and give a clear statement of time and place captured in a simple photo, each one tells a story and for me the addition of colour adds great value. I see how it is added and what it emphasises says a lot about the meaning behind the pictures. I guess if one is not used to this type of production they are easily passed off as black and white trying to be colour but I believe they are far more complex than that.
That's only my 2c, thanks for the pics pullandbang.

bullpost

I see what they've done there - applied the photoshop "John Hinde Postcard" filter to these

AnCatDubh

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Not sure I understand where the negativity is coming from,.

I don't think its negativity for negativity's sake. I just really prefer non faux tinted images of this kind.


here's another attributed to Mr. De Cou ( i don't specifically know the image so i hope it is for the discussions sake)



I prefer this as an image to any one of those originally posted.

I can appreciate that there is something of what is to me a is a quirky curiosity about the images, but would be something I would tire of really quickly.

However, I'll give it that it is an art form which was engaged in and by all accounts has a significant archive left to some university in the states through an Ansel Adams connection of some 10,000+ hand dye'd glass slides. Phew! That's a lot of commitment and a lot of effort to have gone to. I'd also say that in its day, it would have had the world goo'ing and gah'ing at it - it was pretty impressive stuff. Infact across the web there is a lot of people who still goo and gah at them and that's fine. Personally, I just don't particularly like it. I wouldn't go mad to have one hanging on a wall or to own a book of them. As we know, art ain't for everyone. Perhaps that explains it

It does remind us that the digital world is doing nothing particularly new in terms of image manipulation other than perhaps bringing it to the masses and I guess in 100 years time there will be a photography forum debating how the instagram faux filters were really bad and betray the true image that real photographers of their day took :pac:

amdgilmore

I can't help but feel that this thread offers some insight into how the people of the 2090s will react to the HDRs of today.