As per Wired, a number of historians are making calls to stop the colorization and modernization of images from decades past. Updating photos to resemble modern eras “obscures” history, they argue.
An increasingly popular service over recent years, advances in technology have allowed for the colorizing of old photos and video footage, giving a fresh insight into scenes from history. However, not everyone is a fan of the process, with some historians publicly declaring they feel the negatives outweigh the positives.
Wired is reporting that Luke McKernan, the lead curator of news and moving images at the British Library, said:
It is a nonsense. Colorization does not bring us closer to the past; it increases the gap between now and then. It does not enable immediacy; it creates difference.
The historians argue that implementing extra frames or color takes away from what the original footage is and should remain.
Associate Professor at University College Dublin’s School of Art History and Cultural Policy Emily Mark-Fitzgerald said:
The problem with colorization is it leads people to just think about photographs as a kind of uncomplicated window onto the past, and that’s not what photographs are.
YouTubers who specialize in upscaling old footage have defended their work, claiming it makes important historical footage easier for new generations to digest. There’s also an argument for the restoring of footage attracting the attention of people who wouldn’t otherwise have been interested.
The debate continues!
As long as the originals aren't being compromised, why should anyone care?
I wonder if any of these historians are condoning the removal of statues that reflect history? Just asking.
I agree with you on preserving the originals, but let's please keep removal of statues out of this -- that can easily degenerate into a totally off-topic flamewar.
While I think the statue quip was political, it actually presents a weird correlation.
Many believe that the grey marble Roman statues were originally painted in vibrant colors. Doe we restore then to be historically correct is the lost of the original colors part of the overall history.
To be even further out. Many also believe that dinosaurs were also very colorful.
Its amazing how current perceptions are tied to what we originally know but as we discover and learn more, many don't want to expand their knowledge because it slightly challenges their reality.
Colourising old photos and films perhaps removes is from the original historical artefact of that black and white photograph, but I think it can bring us closer to the actual history of life then.
It shows us life in colour.
All the black and white photographs from the past make us perceive the past as some black and white, sepia period instead of a world full of colour just like the modern time.
So in my opinion we should separate the historical artefacts from the picture of the past that they give us.
The artefacts are sepia, or black and white.
The window onto our past that they give, has extra value to us if we can also see it with the original colour.
I agree. And I'd add that the reality was not in black and white. Colors exist without the filter of photography. And, who knows if the photographers of the past wouldn't have used color film if they had the choice ? I don't recall painters who used only grey tones.
Of course, it's not question to colorize a photo of, say, Man Ray. But I remember the impact that had the colorization of this young Polish girl murdered in Auschwitz, by Marina Amaral. It seems we need to show how recent History is close to us. And color is a very efficient way to achieve this.
My parents were really late at switching to color tv, but thanks to my older brother's wealthy friend who brought an early ping pong console to our place, we were able to see the game a few minutes before the old b&w set started smelling hot and stopped working for ever. Colors were such a weird thing on the new set, it took me a few days to stop thinking about it.
There are really two effect that affected me in the Japanese clip. The first one is how realistic people look compared to the jerky wrong speed and missing frames. The second one is how color makes the scene look even older than viewed in black and white. I think the proper speed and colorization reveal how different things are today. Black and white in motion hides a lot despite showing the same exact things
I do like the frames fill that allow almost normal movements. When I was a kid, there was none of that on older films which was then normal, but there is no doubt in my mind that the cameramen of the time would have loved to be able to play their work the way we can now play it. Color wise, the process employed here gives realistic soft colors rendering that I find acceptable. Acceptable by all or not, the process and duplication allows for the films to be exposed to the public again and increase the chances for these time frames to survive.
As everyone knows, color was invented in the late 1930s and color film was invented about 2 hours after that.
certainly a lot of pros&cons on that issue ... but, just to state: the JAPANESE vintage photos of that era (meiji, after the forced opening of japan) were all HANDCOLORED then :)) there existed even painter/printer-workshops to paint artfully the sepia/black&white originals in order to sell them as exotic souvenirs :)
so, digitally coloring in that case would not alter the perception of the image as a piece of art or documents (geisha/samurai images were staged, too - by actors, btw:)
Calvin: Dad, how come old photographs are always black and white? Didn’t they have color film back then?
Dad: Sure they did, in fact, those old photographs ARE in color. It’s just that the WORLD was in black and white then.
Calvin: Really?
Dad: Yep. The world didn’t turn to color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
Calvin: That’s really weird.
Dad: Well, truth is stranger than fiction.
Calvin: But then why are old PAINTINGS in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn’t artists have painted it that way?
Dad: Not necessarily, a lot of great artists were insane.
Calvin: But… but how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn’t their paints have been shades of gray back then?
Dad: Of course, but they turned colors like everything else did in the ’30s.
Calvin: So why didn’t black and white photos turn color too?
Dad: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?
Calvin: The world is a complicated place, Hobbes.
Hobbes: Whenever it seems that way, I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner.
;)
Arguably, the best comic ever penned. Brilliant writing!
Colorization is perfectly fine if identified as such.