Previous news story    Next news story

Sanna Dullaway Adds Color to the Most Iconic Photos in History

By dpreview staff on Aug 19, 2013 at 09:44 GMT

General-interest blog The Roosevelts has posted a selection of artist Sanna Dullaway's colorized images, showing what iconic images might have looked like to the photographer that captured them. Among the (exceeding well-done, it must be said) adjusted images are Malcolm Browne's iconic shot of monk Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation, Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous image of the kiss in Times Square on VJ Day, and Anne Frank's haunting 1942 portrait. 

The images are unattributed, but appear to originate with Swedish artist Sanna Dullaway.

Abraham Lincoln in color
Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation (1968)
Atomic test (1946)
Alfred Hitchcock - 'Master of Horror' in color
Anne Frank (1942) 
Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' (1936)
Margaret Bourke-White took this iconic shot in 1937 - here's how it might have looked to her.  

Comments

Total comments: 275
123
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (8 months ago)

The sooner the word "iconic" is temporarily suspended from the lexicon (let's say for about 10 years) the better.

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (8 months ago)

I'm with you, let's start a pressure group.

Any word is good if used properly but "iconic" has come to mean anything vaguely recognisable and is overused to a depressing degree by lazy journalists.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (8 months ago)

This will happen when eBay prohibits the use of the word "rare".

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

I think it is mainly good job and quite interesting to see her interpretation. Many of the images gets more depth, better 3D feeling. Some are to gaudy IMHO. But -- you can´t have 100% success every time.

3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (8 months ago)

Bad idea. There's reasons other than the time why some of these are in bw. This isn't too far from Richard Prince thievery (but at least what she did requires skill).

The issue is not talent or not here but why steal someone else's work like that and bastardize it.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

Personally I think the world and art moves forward by being inspired by other an refining already existing works. Its up to anyone to think its bad or good taste. But ... thats the case with everything.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (8 months ago)

It's not the good or bad taste. It's that Richard Prince made millions and millions of dollars using images created by commercial photographers but didn't pay them, didn't credit them, and didn't even have the decency to say he was sorry for stealing their works. "Appropriationism" is a shameful chapter in the history of art.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

Who is Richard Prince? And what has this to do with the article here. As far as I know Sanna don't hide where the images come from.

5 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (8 months ago)

We may argue the merits, or lack there of, of Prince. I tend to agree with the criticism. But I think we have to be careful not to confuse his work and appropriation on the whole. I believe Man Ray, Duchamp, Rauschenberg, Baldessari, Starn Twins, many other impactful artists of the twentieth century used this technique to broaden the overall art historical dialog. And I think this continues - I really enjoy the more recent explorations and articulations of many. One of my personal favorites is Jason Salavon.

0 upvotes
dgeugene1
By dgeugene1 (8 months ago)

These miraculous transformations might be useful as an appetite suppressant for those on a weight-loss program.

1 upvote
canonade
By canonade (8 months ago)

meh. I'm not opposed to fooling around with old photos, but "exceeding well-done" is a stretch. The colors still look a bit off; almost unnatural in some instances.

1 upvote
Paul Janders
By Paul Janders (8 months ago)

Only in the art world can you bastardize someone else's work and be rewarded for it.

5 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

Maybe. But it talks well of the art world IMHO.

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (8 months ago)

Only in art, business, politics, science, cooking, fashion, writing, music...

3 upvotes
Chillbert
By Chillbert (8 months ago)

uh right - that's a large part of how art functions - by re-interpreting what has gone before.

0 upvotes
seragram
By seragram (8 months ago)

sacrilege. LOL

2 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (8 months ago)

Mr. Moonlight has his dates and terms wrong. Modern color films as we know them are known as integral tripacks. Kodachrome was introduced in 1935. It was originally intended as a commercial motion picture film but it never took off; the technicolor process was preferred due to it's ease of making copies. Kodak spooled the product into 35mm magazines and was a success among amateurs and professionals alike. Sheet and roll film sizes followed. Agfacolor (transparency film) was released a few years after. Kodachrome was a dye-additive process while Agfa used dye couplers. One only has to look at magazines from the 1950's and '60's to see just how much color photography was being done. As for myself, I still dream in Tri-X. Tonight I'm sure I'll have colorized nightmares.

0 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (8 months ago)

Yes, your right, my bad. Kodachrome was introduced in the 30's. I was thinking of Ektachrome, which was much faster than Kodachrome and individuals/independent labs were allowed to process it sometime in the 50's after Kodak lost their processing monopoly.

1 upvote
b craw
By b craw (8 months ago)

Look at that. A humble and respectful retraction. Good form and manner. Appreciated.

1 upvote
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (8 months ago)

Which faith used these as religious icons?

0 upvotes
Davros5064
By Davros5064 (8 months ago)

I too prefer BW over color. However there are instances where color gives the scope more dramatically, like the immolation where fire looks real and someone is burning in it.
I guess it all depends on how busy the picture is. BW unifies the background and distractions away from the main subject.
In the end its all "relative to the observer" as the colored old man above would say.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

I'd bet 500:1 odds that had color been readily available when these photographs had been taken, they wouldn't have been taken in black and white. The people claiming artistic purity have no idea if black and white was what the photographer wanted and we certainly know black in white was not "true" to the scene.

1 upvote
mothergoose
By mothergoose (8 months ago)

I basically agree, but black & white bares the basics--no colour to distract. It can be very riveting.

0 upvotes
JamesInCA
By JamesInCA (8 months ago)

Er ... color was readily available to professionals from the '30s on. Perhaps you've seen Gone With the Wind, or The Wizard of Oz, both from 1939?

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

Yep, exactly. It's kind of like trying to preserve many things simply because they are old. Time travel people from the past into the present and I bet most of them would say "why the heck are you trying to preserve that junk?" :)

Not that the originals in this case are junk.

0 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (8 months ago)

Not exactly. Before the 50's, color was basically achieved by simultaneously running 3 strips of B&W film behind a beam splitter through RGB filters, then pieced together in post. Otherwise known as Technicolor. This is the method used in Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. It was quite cumbersome and not exactly practical for handheld still cameras as well as being quite expensive. The first Monopack color films came out in the 50's, but as with any new tech, was still quite expensive and not widely used until the late 60's/early 70's. Probably around the time C41 became commonplace. So really anything before the 70's, especially for journalist, B&W would have been the standard. It's one of the reasons why you don't see many color still photos outside of studio shots before the 70's.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (8 months ago)

"The people claiming artistic purity have no idea if black and white was what the photographer wanted..."
...But you DO know the photographers would have photographed in colour if it were readily available, don't you? You don't just bet 500:1 - you are absolutely certain, right?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (8 months ago)

When tkbslc said 500:1, I'd say he meant 500:1 not that he's absolutely certain. Think about it this way. Today we have the ability to shoot both B&W or Color by choice with either film or digital. If you look at similar types of photography over the last 10 years, you will find very few shots taken in B&W. Presidential portraits, Bomb explosion, someone burning themselves in protest, snapshot of a girl, natural disaster... there are few instances here where photographers these days will choose B&W over color these days. I'd agree, there is little chance that these photos would have been taken in B&W had they been taken in a situation today where we have the choice of either one.

1 upvote
califleftyb
By califleftyb (8 months ago)

I hate graffiti.

4 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (8 months ago)

Spray paint on the Acropolis, highly skilled excrementation.

0 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

Oh, God, this contemptible idiot again? She had her 15 minutes already, last year when she conned Time magazine into using her crappy and historically inaccurate colorizations of some photos of Lincoln. Go away, Dullaway, you have no talent or taste.

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

No talent? Wow. You kind of kill all your credibility with that remark.

11 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

It takes talent to produce an Iconic image. It's takes zero talent to manipulate them!

2 upvotes
mothergoose
By mothergoose (8 months ago)

Yes, zero talent to manipulate, but to manipulate well takes skill and creativity.

8 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

I put in a reply to tkbslc, but then I considered the source.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

The color conversions are flawless and pass for original color photographs. The fact that you don't like the art form doesn't have any bearing on the amount of talent required or displayed.

20 upvotes
Jeff Peterman
By Jeff Peterman (8 months ago)

She clearly has a lot of talent/technical skill. The fact that you don't like the way it was applied is entirely a different matter.

4 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

Technical skill is not the same as talent. We don't, or shouldn't, speak of the "talent" of the people who do the photoshopping for fashion magazines, for example. And I'm not all that impressed with the skill shown here, either; some of these are garish.

1 upvote
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (8 months ago)

If you can't see the level of skill/talent exhibited here, try doing a conversion like this yourself. We can argue semantics, but either way the level of work here is impressive. Weather it's to your taste or not is a different story. There's a lot of extremely talented people working on the images you see in fashion mags. It's not exactly brainless busy work.

3 upvotes
BigEnso
By BigEnso (8 months ago)

And I'll bet she can add a mustache to the Mona Lisa as well.

9 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (8 months ago)

lol

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Maybe she can convert it to black and white so you guys can "ooh" and "aah" over the instant boost in artistic value.

6 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (8 months ago)

Or maybe she can take her own bw photos and convert them to color instead of stealing the work of someone else ?

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

derivative works are not stealing.

2 upvotes
PhotonCollector
By PhotonCollector (8 months ago)

Perhaps this is more in the crafts than the artist realm - artisan more than art which is also the impression her web-site leaves. I think she is pretty good as what she is doing. Not that it is any proof - but Sanna Dullaway is not listed on artfacts.net (where Ansel Adams is currently number 364).

1 upvote
Sudo Nimh
By Sudo Nimh (8 months ago)

I love these. The color adds immediacy and modernizes the images. Looking at Lincoln is like seeing him in the present. The effect is bracing.

22 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

My thoughts exactly.

1 upvote
Becksvart
By Becksvart (8 months ago)

I wholly concur.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

Black and white purists really need to lighten up and open their minds. As long as the color process looks realistic I don't see how any photographer should be upset about these images. The black and white versions are not all of a sudden going to disappear.

6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Not to mention they were originally photographed in black and white out of necessity, not choice.

1 upvote
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

Oh really? For some of these images color film was around at the time they were taken. They made the choice to shoot in B&W.

1 upvote
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

It's not a matter of "black-and-white purism", it is a question of what is a historical document and what is a lie promulgated by a tasteless low-rent hack seeking her 15 minutes of fame.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

It was not a reasonable alternative until the 1960-1970s due to cost and limited ISO speeds. It certainly wasn't useful to photojournalism for that reason.

3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (8 months ago)

Its far more than simple black and white purism. Its a form of vandalism and its ring called art.

I have no problem with her doing this to photos whose authors approve of it.

2 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (8 months ago)

Ah, a "historical document" from before the world gained color, I guess? Face it, B&W photography is inherently taking an artistic license with the subject, which is in color. Adding color is trying to restore some more realism to it.

0 upvotes
GeorgeD200
By GeorgeD200 (8 months ago)

This, I hate. The fact that these photos would be printed in B&W was a central compositional factor to most of the photographers at the time. Adding color is disingenuous to their original work. It cheapens the photo and the artist that colorized them.

Many of these photos were designed to document a particular event, and color composition wasn't part of the equation. To add color to photos like "Migrant Mother" suggests information that is artificial. We don't know what color blouse she wore, and to suggest a color would be dishonest, unless properly identified as an artists interpretation, like colorized drawings of dinosaurs.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (8 months ago)

Your "central compositional factor" was a "technical limitation" in many of these images.

8 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (8 months ago)

Keep in mind that in the 1930's color films were slow and not easy to process. So shooting in B&W was frequently a technical trade-off rather than an artistic choice...

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (8 months ago)

That still doesn't change what he said. First not all photos are that old. Second you don't know if the photographer would have unequivocally chosen color instead of bw.

A lot if most art is created within constraints- those constraints playing a certain focus to the final product. This is a bit of stealing someone else's work.

0 upvotes
GeorgeD200
By GeorgeD200 (8 months ago)

It may have been a trade-off, but it was one that they accepted, and took into account when they made the images. The modern manipulator's choice of color is her artistic expression, and shouldn't be confused with the original photographer's. She chose to make the truck in the picture of the burning monk a contrasting blue, when it could have, in fact matched the orange of the robes or flames. She chose to make all of the clothing in Migrant Mother match harmoniously, implying something that may not have been there. This work is disingenuous and derivative, similar to, as someone else suggested, adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa. You can call it art if you want to. I call it cr@p.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

Thats your opinion. I like them. And it brings the original shooters images to the forefront for discussion and viewing. I personally doubt they would as disturbed as most of the snooty responses on DPR.

1 upvote
MarcusGR
By MarcusGR (8 months ago)

Stunning job, the "Migrant mother" especially. Technical question (for DP or anyone else): is there a way, with today's technical tools, to derive the "real" original colours of a scene from their "interpretation" by a B&W film? Or is it just a guess-work (though based on documents and historical studies) ? I suppose that if the "real" colours (in natural average daylight) of a couple objects appearing in a scene were known, all the rest might be 'derived' rather than 'guessed' ...? Of course, light and colours are one and the same thing, so nothing 'absolute' about colours can be said when light is not in the equation. Nonetheless, in natural light I think some very realistic assumptions might be done ...

2 upvotes
stupidisanart
By stupidisanart (8 months ago)

pure educated guessing.

1 upvote
GeorgeD200
By GeorgeD200 (8 months ago)

Sorry, no. The original film only recorded tone, not any color info. There is no way to tell the difference between a pink, green, or blue blouse with the same tonality. Any colorization of these images is an educated guess at best.

3 upvotes
anandhavalli
By anandhavalli (8 months ago)

this is the same doubt or questions which is in my thought.

0 upvotes
Jeff Peterman
By Jeff Peterman (8 months ago)

The only way to get color from a B&W image is if the photographer shot the same scene with red, green, and blue filters in place (plus one with none) then the four images could be used to get a fairly good estimate of the color. Without that, most of the color information is gone. (If you know the spectral sensitivity of the film and have the negative, you'll get some based on unnaturally light/dark areas.)

1 upvote
Michael Shh
By Michael Shh (8 months ago)

Here is a good article on colour restoration from BW material:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.7477&rep=rep1&type=pdf

0 upvotes
Robgo2
By Robgo2 (8 months ago)

While some might consider colorizing these iconic photos to be a sacrilege, how does it differ from transposing musical pieces from one instrument to another or even to an entire orchestra? It has been done many times. It is up to the listener/viewer to decide whether the transposed music/image can stand on its own.

A separate question in the case of colorized photographs is whether the original photographer would approve. On that point, we can only speculate, but I suspect that most would not.

Rob

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (8 months ago)

Rob, I can't possibly imagine how preposterous Bruckner's 9th Symphony would sound like played with synthesizers. You'd probably like it, but you should accept others wouldn't.
And it's no sacrilege. Just some stupid attempt to be noticed for all the wrong reasons.

0 upvotes
BigEnso
By BigEnso (8 months ago)

To quote the strippers from Gypsy:

Get yourself a gimmick and you too,
Can be a star!

1 upvote
Marc de Vries
By Marc de Vries (8 months ago)

@ManuelVilardeMacedo:
Interesting that you would mention Bruckner's 9th in this situation. Because it was the premiere was not performed the way Bruckner had intented. So I guess you find the premiere version preposterous? (which was performed this way for 26 years)
So, do you accept the Löwe version, the Orel edition, Nowak edition or Cohrs edition of Bruckners 9th?

0 upvotes
DukeCC
By DukeCC (8 months ago)

Since colorizing digitally does not take away from the original, I am fine with it. Why not take advantage of a world where we can have both--faithful, historical examples PLUS digitally enhanced versions that can only add to our experience?

7 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

Because the colorization is a guess--in Dullaway's case, not a very educated guess--and not a document. It does not add to our experience to have a version of a documentary photo that adds things that that aren't true.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

black and white certainly wasn't "true".

5 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

Black and white photographs are "true"; they aren't "complete". Leaving things out when capturing the original scene--whether for technical or artistic reasons--is very different than adding things later

If she had added detailed "photorealist" renderings of things that weren't in the frames of these photos, would that be OK?

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (8 months ago)

Actually bw photos are quite true - its what was captured. What she did is guessing I have no problem if she got the photographers consent to do this but otherwise its a bit like stealing

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (8 months ago)

Actualkly we have no idea how the b&w shots was filtered and altered ....

2 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (8 months ago)

Picard says "a lie of omission is still a lie"...

0 upvotes
Tom K.
By Tom K. (8 months ago)

So anyone who uses Photoshop to convert a color image to B&W is a Philistine barbarian, descrating the true original? Do I have that right?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
califleftyb
By califleftyb (8 months ago)

If you use photoshop to convert YOUR photo, then that is your intent and it's perfectly ok. Otherwise, no, you don't have it right.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Derivative works law would argue that one does have the right.

1 upvote
Leandros S
By Leandros S (8 months ago)

I disagree Sdaniella. It depends to what extent she used available sources to determine the real colours - if she did not consider this, then yes, it's a lazy fake. I might add that there's nothing particularly difficult about just digitally recolouring a B&W photo.

2 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

The last time she stuck her head up, she gave Lincoln blue eyes, ignoring historical accounts that they were grey. My monitor may be off, but it looks like she's trying out brown eyes this time. She is ignorant, sloppy, tasteless, and stupid.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

You know there is a way to get your point across without throwing a barrage of random insults in each comment. You could have just made the point about accuracy and I might have considered it a fair point. But then you throw in that last line and I can't take anything you type seriously because it just sounds like troll flame.

4 upvotes
madeinlisboa
By madeinlisboa (8 months ago)

Amazing!

0 upvotes
saizo
By saizo (8 months ago)

I think applying few instagram filters will make it even better :D

6 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (8 months ago)

pp for film prints
done quite well

to call it fake

is liken to calling all digital images fake that have been pp for colors, saturation, wb, etc

if anyone can do a better job putting realistic colors into THE OUTRIGHT FAKERY OF B&W photos, only then can one claim these colorized ones look fake

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

Explain the outright fakery?

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (8 months ago)

The world is a) not still and b) not black and white!

It's a breath of fresh air to see someone else recognize it. (the commenter, not the "artist" in the OP)

0 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

Wow really?

0 upvotes
FredSpain
By FredSpain (8 months ago)

Black and white photography or movies are things of the past. Photographers and movie-makers used them because they had no other possibility at the time or did not kmow they existed. Technically, Color photography was possible since 1899 and color cinematography since 1926. The use of painted B&W pictures (or movies (most of Melies movies had a colorised version)) was very active in the first half of the XXth century.This artist respect the originals and do not exagerate colors. If you personally do not like it, its is your opinion but think that others have the right to think different.

3 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

B&W Photography is a thing of the past? When was the last time you went to an Art Gallery or Museum?? What a stupid thing to say!

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
FredSpain
By FredSpain (8 months ago)

I used and practiced B&W photography (with cameras and own darkroom) for more than 40 years and i admit that as nowadays it represent less than 5 % of world production, it is a thing of the past like film photographyWhether you like it or not does not change this fact.

3 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

Sorry you gave up on it.

0 upvotes
DMillier
By DMillier (8 months ago)

Fredspain

Maybe a better description in the digital era might be that B&W is a thriving sub genre of photography?

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (8 months ago)

"Black and white photography or movies are things of the past."
In your planet. In your own little planet.

3 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (8 months ago)

No, I would say she has no respect at all for the originals.

0 upvotes
Sk8trguy
By Sk8trguy (8 months ago)

Why? is right.
Didn't TNT get killed when they tried to "colorize" many films?
Also, the colors look over done to me making serious images look like cartoons.

2 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

WHY? None of these incredible shots benefit from color enhancement. They all look fake to me.

1 upvote
Joesiv
By Joesiv (8 months ago)

Maybe your color blind? just kidding ;)

To me they benefit greatly, but I'm probably of a different generation than you. And they don't look as fake as when they used to colorize film prints. I'd actually say they're impressively realistic for the most part.

5 upvotes
mmitch
By mmitch (8 months ago)

Glad you feel that way. Maybe if you took the picture you would feel differently about it.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (8 months ago)

Which of the pictures did you take?

0 upvotes
luigibozi
By luigibozi (8 months ago)

someday we'll see them 3D...

2 upvotes
grgi
By grgi (8 months ago)

stunning - brings the scene somehow closerto me...

I love B&W and I appreciate the mastery of the original photographers.
For me Sanna Dullaway's photos are a tribute to the originals.

3 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (8 months ago)

Were those photographs taken by Sanna Dullaway? No? Then keep your hands away from them.

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Were they taken by you?

1 upvote
onlooker
By onlooker (8 months ago)

> Were they taken by you?

WTH does that have to do with it? Do you have no respect for anyone's work unless it's yours?

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

I find it rather strange that you tell us that Sandra Dullaway shall keep her hands from the images. What do you plan to accomplish with that?

2 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (8 months ago)

No, I said she "should". I have no idea what your last question is supposed to ask.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (8 months ago)

You are claiming authority over the images by decreeing that she should not make her modified versions of them.

0 upvotes
luxor2
By luxor2 (8 months ago)

Well done, these photos were defiled by a master, Lincoln looks like Ronald Regan's make up man did him too. Let's make history infotainment!

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (8 months ago)

These images remind me of those old Japanese photographs from the 19th century which were colour painted after taken.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (8 months ago)

The next step is to paint Michelangelo's statues and the Parthenon with garish colours. And maybe the Colosseum and the Fontana di Trevi.

2 upvotes
FredSpain
By FredSpain (8 months ago)

For your information, classic greek (roman, egyptian as well) statues were painted and gothic cathedrals also. If we are not able to recover the actual colors used by the greeeks it is possible for cathedrals and it is possible to see at night the largest one in Chartres with all its original colors with projection method.

12 upvotes
chromophore
By chromophore (8 months ago)

+1

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (8 months ago)

Very nice piece of cultural information, Fred - although nothing that I didn't already know -, but ultimately pointless and way out of the mark.

0 upvotes
OldDigiman
By OldDigiman (8 months ago)

What is this doing on DPR, has nothing to do with photography. Waste of bandwidth.

1 upvote
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (8 months ago)

Aren’t those photographs?

11 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (8 months ago)

If photos don't have anything to do with photography, then...

1 upvote
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (8 months ago)

@Mark, no they are color processed digitized images OF old photographs.

Very interesting but I prefer the originals.

2 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (8 months ago)

Photo's having nothing to do with photography. That's something new.

3 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (8 months ago)

Why do I continue to read the comments on DPR, when I know it'll be full of nonsense from no-hoper negative-nancies?

27 upvotes
Flying Snail
By Flying Snail (8 months ago)

Because it's fun?

2 upvotes
Jeff Peterman
By Jeff Peterman (8 months ago)

Photography was more full of negatives in the film days ...
;-)

6 upvotes
inframan
By inframan (8 months ago)

So those who disagree with your opinion are "no-hoper negative-nancies". Nice.
Now what does that make you. Probably a double-negative nancy.

0 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (8 months ago)

Fail (inframan). Way to miss the point.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bigdaddave
By bigdaddave (8 months ago)

I think this is quite an interesting thing to do, but it's a shame they couldn't get anywhere near realistic skin tones, they all look yellow or pasty

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (8 months ago)

I disagree! You think color photos today look realistic with skin tones and porcelain smooth skin?

There are far too many film types (digital "enhancement") to complain about. Maybe you don't care for the particular tones just as many photographers would choose one film over another.

It could also be a matter of monitor calibration.

2 upvotes
nellydesign
By nellydesign (8 months ago)

So much hate on here for what someone chooses to do and do well. I for one am happy to see Abraham Lincoln as he may have actually looked outside a black and white world. it makes him more real to me. Stop tearing down, really.

15 upvotes
Jeff Peterman
By Jeff Peterman (8 months ago)

From the technical perspective these are extremely well done. They don't look colorized, but appear to be color originals. I don't think they take anything away from the original iconic images but stand on their own as great images.

And the artist's name seems very appropriate (dull-away).

16 upvotes
RUcrAZ
By RUcrAZ (8 months ago)

An interesting exercise. The person who did it enjoyed some harmless fun. Other than that......

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (8 months ago)

Photo Corruption. Old adage states, "just because you can doesn't mean you should." She's good at what she does but I wouldn't want these images to be disseminated into popular culture as the real thing; Laboratory created mutant abominations allowed to roam free in the wild.

The self immolated monk is just tasteless: Perhaps we don't need to see red blood on the floor in the photo of Bobby Kennedy's assassination to feel that it is any more real or horrible.

Restore and preserve our photographic past with respect and even reverence to great photographers. I think this is tacky exemplified.

6 upvotes
nellydesign
By nellydesign (8 months ago)

And I think you are a negative nancy personified. Hope you had fun vilifying the artist here.

9 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (8 months ago)

You're really over thinking this. That's like complaining because someone chose to paint their classic car red over the black it originally was.

1 upvote
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (8 months ago)

Not negative, just offended and concerned about our photographic history. I'm not having fun or vilifying the person re-rendering these images - calling her an artist is a bit of a stretch however. I suppose if you want to paint your Aston Martin DB5 pink or purple it would speak volumes about your bad taste.

1 upvote
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (8 months ago)

It's not destroying the originals and it's only adding to our photographic history. These images were taken before color film became an industry standard so it's not as if the photographer wouldn't have chosen color had it been an option. It's sort of like re-painting one of the Terracotta Warriors to give us and idea what they originally looked like. When Dorothea Lange framed her famous Migrant Mother, she did it in color not B&W.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (8 months ago)

Thich Quang Duc died on June 11th, 1963, not 1968. This June was the 50th anniversary.

3 upvotes
wcbert
By wcbert (8 months ago)

To me 'Migrant Mother' has a greater impact as a B/W photo.

But we been here before. A decade ago hollywood colorized B/W movies. They did it to sell more DVDs. It was a fad and this artist work comes across to me, it been done before and is a fad.

0 upvotes
nellydesign
By nellydesign (8 months ago)

Colorized movies always looked like colorized movies. That's why these are different. They look like natural color images. Not black and white images that have been colorized. The artist is VERY good at what he/she does.

4 upvotes
photolando
By photolando (8 months ago)

I'm just curious. Does not some copyright issues apply here? I realize perhaps all of the original photographers are dead but I can't imagine the current copyright holders of say Karsh's Einstein or Churchill would agree to such a thing. I see some are available for purchase as prints or posters! Really?

This person got a license to not only sell these original works of art but was allowed to change them?

I know everyone on here (and every other photo forum) has a hissy fit when they post about others retouching their work. And we're a bunch of nobodies! lol

0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (8 months ago)

copyright is not eternal

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

"copyright is not eternal"

As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

I'd say most, if not all copyrights are still active.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (8 months ago)

Derivative works provision in the copyright law should allow works like these .

2 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work."

There is nothing original or copyrightable in adding color to a b/w photograph.

0 upvotes
Under The Sun
By Under The Sun (8 months ago)

I like it, colour gives these images a new perspective.

3 upvotes
CameraCarl
By CameraCarl (8 months ago)

Odd that I didn't see any iconic Ansel Adams or W. Eugene Smith photos in here..... What is next, the Wizard of Oz re-released in "beautiful" Black and White?

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (8 months ago)

Just because YOU don't see it in this group doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

AA may be a fan of many, but I bet the photo that Margaret Bourke-White means more to others...such as myself. I really wouldn't care if Ansel Adams or W. Eugen Smith photos were done or not.

That's like complaining that because there is no Picaso painting the art in the room isn't complete.

0 upvotes
apelle
By apelle (8 months ago)

Whatta waste of time and energy...
Artists work should be more productive and interesting...

1 upvote
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (8 months ago)

You, me, and everyone else on here typed a reply of some sort regarding this story. What kind of time and energy did we not waste? Was it productive and interesting?

1 upvote
neo_nights
By neo_nights (8 months ago)

B&W purists. B&W purists everywhere!

2 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (8 months ago)

Yeah, they are totally blind to all other things in life. I call it narrow minded.

3 upvotes
crsantin
By crsantin (8 months ago)

I don't have a problem with this. The monk and the atomic bomb are pretty powerful in colour. It's an interesting exercise, and that's all I see it as.

4 upvotes
GeminiH
By GeminiH (8 months ago)

Yes, I think the atomic bomb in colour really adds a contrast between natural beauty and the destruction.

The two sets of images have different focal points, if you see what I mean

0 upvotes
Michaelr205
By Michaelr205 (8 months ago)

Excellent!

1 upvote
aris14
By aris14 (8 months ago)

It's very common in Greece to turn b/w photos in coloured ones for people when die, just to print it in porcelain and then put it in their graves. Brrr..!
It's rather low bred to try to overpass the original media.
I guess the next step is to make again the statues of Hermes of Praxiteles, Aphrodite of Milo and such...
Enough with these low bred staff...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
monkeybrain
By monkeybrain (8 months ago)

I'm assuming you know that the Hermes of Praxiteles, Aphrodite of Milo and pretty much all the ancient statues from your country were originally painted and might be considered rather gaudy by modern Western standards.

Time has a habit of desaturating material objects, these colourised photos could thus be seen as an ironic reversal of this.

5 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (8 months ago)

True fact! Statues in ancient Greece were painted. Colour was used to give an extra reality. I wouldn't mind to see them in colour if someone could really estimate the real colours they were painted, I would like to see them painted. Since we cannot do it in nowadays due to lack of evidence I prefer them, as all I guess, the way they are. Not "rebuild", neither "corrected" or assumed...
They are just fine as they are...

0 upvotes
BRPWS
By BRPWS (8 months ago)

why would anyone want to take incredible and meaningful black and white images in to the distraction of color photographs. I don't see the motivation for taking excellent and defining photography created by photographic artists into something they did not intend it to be.

Make your own images and and leave the works of others stand as they are.

5 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (8 months ago)

Perhaps to make the pictures feel "closer" to us? At least the younger audiences?
I mean, when we look at pictures and movies from older times, we get the impression that the world was B&W! Sometimes, yes, I do get the curiosity to see how it really was. And it really had colors, hadn't it?

Don't feel threatened; the classic, B&W versions, will never lose their value nor importance.

8 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (8 months ago)

Perhaps because not everyone see's things the way you do.

Did you think maybe the 'intended it to be' was the only option available at the time (or financial expense). Do you know 100% for sure that not one of these photographers said 'I don't ever want this image in color'?

This is just another way to look at the images.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 275
123