How Does Color Change The Impact Of A Photo?

These are stunning colorizations and give the old photos a depth that black and white does not.
I have been doing this with some of my old family photos, while restoring them, adding color. I don't know if I'm expressing it clearly but by adding the color, we feel a deeper connection-no longer just looking at an old black and white (or sepia), we are viewing a slice of life.

I am a huge fan of black and white but colorizing these makes the event photographed more, probably not the best word, "real". I would have liked to see both versions.

@ Louise and Theresa. I have to agree, and was wondering why. I assume that because we are used to color photographs being modern and B&W being a feature of old photographs, it triggers a bit more attention as we try to reconcile what we are seeing.

I love those. The world has never been only 50 shades of gray, although we tend to think of the past that way.

As a child, I remember sitting on the couch with my grandma Rose, flipping through black and white photo albums, and she commenting "that was the prettiest yellow dress" and "the sky was so blue that day" and "there's your mother with her red umbrella." She could see the color.

And aren't we amazed when we learn that many of the great Egyptian pyramids, obelisks and statues were smooth and brightly colored instead of craggy and sepia colored?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

What a lovely memory of your Grandma Rose, Dan. Wouldn't that be a thrill to travel back in time and see Egyptian artifacts when they were first created.

Great post H.W. I've caught a few episodes of a T.V. program called "The War in Colour". I think it was run on the History channel or maybe BBC.. It's essentially the same thing, colourized footage from the second world war. I've seen loads of B+W footage but never been able to connect with it like I could the colourized version. The B+W just seemed to belong to a different era..a different world.. whereas the updated footage helped me to realize just how recently this atrocity actually occurred, and just how close to home it was.

edit: To answer the ?....Something gained for sure.. but the feeling of nostalgia is lost..

Having seen most of these in B&W, I don't honestly see where it benefits at all. In fact I find color often takes away from some images, while it adds to others. Some like the Elvis/Nixon image could equally go either way, I like the B&W better, but that is a person preference. Others like the Cityscapes and landscapes look better is B&W, especially the one of the Golden Gate bridge. I did not see none on here, but have ion some other posts on this subject. I think the lose work on action shots, like with Boxers, the B&W gives so much more than Color ever will. Color gives to much information, and we tend to over look more with color. B&W you actually see more because of the reduced information. THe images are the same, but color floods the brain with so much data, you tend to over look things.

When I was a little boy, I once asked my mom if she was alive in the black and white days before there was colour. Had the photographs, and television been in colour in those days, I would have been less confused LOL

It could be generational. I think there's an expectation of color imagery these days. Before color media, there was no large scale colorization, although some individual photographs (particularly Daguerreotypes and Tintypes) were hand-tinted. Some people I know won't even watch black and white movies. I tell them that it was made back when the world was black and white.

@Murray . That's kind of funny.(the movies) I may initially and instinctively see less in doing this simply because we took B&W photos when i was kid, so I already know the world was really in color... :)

I think the colorization makes them feel more real and immediate because we see in color. We don't see in black and white. So instinctively when we see black and white, it's not real. But color is real because it looks like what we see every day.

@Deborah. Interesting. Yet, so much *real* photography of a historical nature is in black and white. I'm thinking first of war journalism. Are such photos easier to look at because they are in black and white? Or do they actually convey more?

War photography is the main subject where I feel colour adds..conveys more..keeps it real. I agree with Deborah. B+W seems unreal.

For those of us who came of age with black and white film, and learned to 'see' in B&W, it's just as real. You have to remember that the motive behind the first (movie) film colorizations was to find a new, younger, audience.

Also, not related to historical images, the current state of color photography with effects like faux HR, have created a new paradigm. Undoubtedly, some also see those as real.

I think, perhaps, it gives them life. Someone did a super job with these. regarding war 'journalism' photography - BW probably let's a person off the hook - about how ugly war really is just ink - not red blood.

True, Roy. In B&W movies, chocolate syrup was often used for blood.

I was amazed by viewing these at how much more real they seem with color, and it is slightly thrilling to feel I am actually there in the moment. Only color can do that. However, I would never want to see Ansel Adams' Rose and Driftwood in color. Some things are better in black and white!

I remember being slightly horrified way back in the 80s (possibly earlier) when old movies were being touched up with color. Horrified is a strong word, but I was a film buff who only wanted to see what I was used to -- not a hair changed. At that time, I couldn't get past what I perceived as fake, but it was more being afraid of the idea than the actual execution. Having recently watched Shirley Temple in "The Little Princess," I'm sure the color was touched up, because it was simply too vivid for the time it was made. I enjoyed that nonetheless.

Yes, I do like seeing the color versions of old photos, especially the General. Thanks for sharing!

Wow. I wonder if that's where Count Chocula came from? (Sorry, I just had too.) ;)

It's interesting that this seems a bit different between people. The suggestion that such an aspect might have generational ties is a captivating idea.

I know that there are differing cultural reactions to some colors as well. Red or White being the death color rather than black for example.

@Patricia. I recall seeing the "Treasure of the Sierra Madre'" . Bogies shirt was a kind of purple and it had a kind of shimmer... very odd indeed. I was not happy with then doing that.

some of those looked really nice, others not so much. the victorian one looked like it came from a book cover, the 1938 burger flipper, i thought that was from the late 60s. and some just look odd with all that grain.

a few of them like the president (i think that was a president, i only glanced), looked more like a museum diorama.


---Mike Savad

A question for me is "do I really want old images to be more immediate?" The original versions imply a stronger sense of history.

Murray, I don't think you're much older than I am (if at all -- I'm 55). I grew up with black and white photos and television too. And I hated it. It annoyed me because I knew that there should be color. I think black and white can create a great dramatic effect, but it's not the real world any more than oversaturated HDR is the real world. I really don't think it's a generational thing. We know deep in our most elemental senses that the world is in color; we know that black and white is intrinsically false. I also think that war photography is just as grisly and dramatic in black and white most of the time. I can think of a few instances where color (like the multiple hues of a bruise, for example, or really bright red blood as opposed to older, blacker blood) will increase the dramatic impact of a photo. But the little girl running away from the napalm is just as stark and full of impact in black and white as it would be in color, I think, just to name one.

I agree with most of what you say, Deborah. I felt the same about B&W television. But what I'm trying to say is that black ad white was part of the aesthetic of those times. You're right about the little girl photo.

I would also agree on that photograph. It's about the must disturbing war photograph that I am aware of.

It seems to me that this may be more individualistic than I would have guessed. I mean, what about folks who don't see color at all? Surely this question would not affect them at all.

I too grew up when the world was black and white ;O) But I will take color imagery over black and white anytime. Well.. almost anytime ;O)

after colorizing one myself, the black and white was sort of a historical record of an event. but the colorized version is the event itself. the color allows you to see the detail. as i painted it, it felt like i was painting a model still on it's tree, all those details that would have been in the background now stood out. what was overlooked, now is seen.

i think it's important to note however, that the best colorizations are on things that were snap shots. and art shot usually has better contrast and color would kill it. even if it was in black and white, if it was intended for art, then color is out of place. but for snaps of the street, where the midtones etc aren't an issue of focus, then the color can really add to it.


---Mike Savad

I have some images that I only offer as black and white. I make this decision when I feel the subject is best viewed without the distraction of color--for example architectural subjects and some minimalist abstractions where the form is far more important than any colors. I find it allows light and shadow to define the subject. Conversely, some images are best when viewed in color so I don't post a B&W version.

I might also post a black and white image if I'm trying to give the image a vintage feel.

Finally, I sometimes post both the color and the B&W versions because the inclusion or elimination of color completely changes the focus or interpretation of the image.

I don't see anything being added in to the color versions. If anything the color is distracting from the subject matter.

Colorizing black and white goes back to the early days of photography. You see old postcards all the time that were colorized. It made landscapes "pretty" but for historic images the impact is from the people and events taking place, not the colors of their clothes etc.

@Mike. Interesting observation. Care to post your example? I'd be interested in seeing it.

@Edward. I can see both sides a bit. Hence my ambivalence to the article, and why I started the thread. I think the range of views on this is illuminating. Clearly it's more subjective than I would have initially guessed.

i have seen many of these in their original Black and White and found the colorization lacking in the psychological impact that B&W holds for me…
To better evaluate the process, they should have been presented together in both B&W and Colorized versions...
like Edward, i see no added value in coloring them, and i also found it distracting.

i'll be posting my examples pretty soon, i have to finish one that is taking way longer than i wanted too.

but i found this site

http://indulgd.com/realistically-colorized-historical-photos/
http://www.designbolts.com/2013/08/21/old-vs-new-restoration-of-historic-pictures/ this one has before and after - i like the country store best. and check out those gams on einstein.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/18 i like this one, they are both nice, the black and white has that old timey look, but the color one is easier to process.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/16829 they didn't show the before, but it's pretty looking.


---Mike Savad