To colorize or not to colorize. That is the question.

[Bill Burgess]

Sec Taylor, sports editor of Des Moines Register (Iowa), 1914 - 1965



L-R: George Sisler, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, 1924 World Series.

[Bill Burgess]

February 11, 1913, M'Alpin Hotel, NYC: National League baseball team owners/representatives:




Waldorf Hotel, New York City, December 13, 1911: National League baseball Executives' meeting:

[runningshoes]

Colourization works well with some photographs and not so well in others, but as long as we have the originals, I don't see the harm in it.

[Bill Burgess]

Garry Herrmann/Ban Johnson: 1914 World Series, Fenway Park, Boston.

[pheasant]

Awesome pics as always, Bill. The color ones bring these old-times back to life, IMHO.

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you, sincerely, pheasant.

One of the reasons I use color, for example, is the photo above. By adding sepia, and adjusting the brightness and contrast, you can actually see things that you can't in the original b/w.
You can see the clothes. In the original, it looks black. So, after 100 years, our tools allow us to see things that were invisible for 100 years.

And THAT is a consideration that is hard to rationalize.

[Bill Burgess]

Dave Egan, Boston sports writer

[Nimrod]

The second picture(sepia)is vastly superior!You can actually make out what that Knight of The Keyboard(Egan)is typing-TED WILLIAMS IS TOO ARROGANT AND IMMATURE...SOX WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF...

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks, Nimrod. Didn't think Egan was THAT tough on Teddy.

[CTRANE]

Otto Knabe

[Bill Burgess]

Nice job, CTrane!

[Lpeters199]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkohn/1...7602056985347/

[CTRANE]

Here's Kansas City Municipal Stadium colorized

KC_Municipal Stadium4 1966.jpg

[Dto7]

Did this one today of Babe Martin 1945 St. Louis Browns

Also video of Babe at 90 years old playing baseball.

[esplanade]

As usual, I'm about 3 years late to this topic. However, I think it is worth noting that, from the time this thread was begun, the technology for home colorizing has improved tremendously. And some of the best programs out there are free.

The most popular free program, no doubt, is GIMP. And I generally use InstantPhotoColor (which has none of the bells and whistles--its a very simple program and that is it's best feature).

As to the philosophical question of whether to colorize or not, I vote absolutely. It is a way to bring the subject matter to life. I'm sorry, but B&W photography just looks flat to me. Look at CTrane's KC Municipal Stadium above. Would that look as delicious and life like in B&W? I think not. That's one brilliant piece of work, btw, far exceeding anything I would even attempt.

There are divisions within the colorizing community, too, though. There is a large school that prefers their colorizations to look like colorizations. I prefer as much reality and detail as is possible. For example, no human face is monochrome. The lips, especially, are always a different color--usually darker or pinker. But some feel this added element tends to look like the ballplayer is wearing lipstick. There's a fix for that, actually, but I just have to disagree in general because.....no human face is monochrome.

The larger the source material, the better. This is likely my best work to date--a Jimmy Piersall colorization I posted at Baseball Birthdays not long ago. There are something like 8 different flesh tones I've used here, counting the eyes and lips. The source material was a Mears auction, so the picture I had to work with was huge. And this one was done mostly in InstantPhotoColor, with a bit of the blending (not much) being done in GIMP.

Would I rather look at this than the original B&W? Yeah, I would.

[Bill Burgess]

As usual, I'm about 3 years late to this topic. However, I think it is worth noting that, from the time this thread was begun, the technology for home colorizing has improved tremendously. And some of the best programs out there are free.

The most popular free program, no doubt, is GIMP. And I generally use InstantPhotoColor (which has none of the bells and whistles--its a very simple program and that is it's best feature).

As to the philosophical question of whether to colorize or not, I vote absolutely. It is a way to bring the subject matter to life. I'm sorry, but B&W photography just looks flat to me. Look at CTrane's KC Municipal Stadium above. Would that look as delicious and life like in B&W? I think not. That's one brilliant piece of work, btw, far exceeding anything I would even attempt.

There are divisions within the colorizing community, too, though. There is a large school that prefers their colorizations to look like colorizations. I prefer as much reality and detail as is possible. For example, no human face is monochrome. The lips, especially, are always a different color--usually darker or pinker. But some feel this added element tends to look like the ballplayer is wearing lipstick. There's a fix for that, actually, but I just have to disagree in general because.....no human face is monochrome.

The larger the source material, the better. This is likely my best work to date--a Jimmy Piersall colorization I posted at Baseball Birthdays not long ago. There are something like 8 different flesh tones I've used here, counting the eyes and lips. The source material was a Mears auction, so the picture I had to work with was huge. And this one was done mostly in InstantPhotoColor, with a bit of the blending (not much) being done in GIMP.

Would I rather look at this than the original B&W? Yeah, I would.

Hi Esplanade, How are you? Welcome aboard! Thanks for making such a great post. I use photoshop and do not even know how to colorize. I would never call my efforts colorizing. I merely add a sepia tone of golden brown, and then add pinkish facial tint. That and adjust the contrast and brightness.

I am in awe of anyone who can colorize a baseball stadium with a grandstand of fans. How to colorize the clothes of a large crown looks bewildering. Just in awe of anyone who would even attempt that ambitious a project.

[WEB]

Hi Esplanade, How are you? Welcome aboard! Thanks for making such a great post. I use photoshop and do not even know how to colorize. I would never call my efforts colorizing. I merely add a sepia tone of golden brown, and then add pinkish facial tint. That and adjust the contrast and brightness.

I am in awe of anyone who can colorize a baseball stadium with a grandstand of fans. How to colorize the clothes of a large crown looks bewildering. Just in awe of anyone who would even attempt that ambitious a project.

I was looking at these excellent images and did not see this as colorizing based on how you see old things on television colorized, but a wonderful effort so thank you.

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you, WEB. I sincerely appreciate your appreciation. I do what I do so others might better enjoy the images of our cultural past. I remain neutral to the subject of true colorizing, both baseball images or films. I do not place my efforts into the 'colorizing' category.

[Dto7]

Iron Davis 1912 New York Highlanders

[Dto7]

This is one of my favorite Babe Ruth photos and I had to colorize it. I think it's from 1929?

[BSmile]

This is one of my favorite Babe Ruth photos and I had to colorize it. I think it's from 1929?

Excellent work Dto7!!!
Great colors...very "photo real".
Cheers! ~B

[Dto7]

Excellent work Dto7!!!
Great colors...very "photo real".
Cheers! ~B

Thank you very much

[dominik]

great job. the eyes are the toughest part, right?

[Bill Burgess]

The grandstand is not easy. I think the Yankee uniform might be a lighter shade of navy blue. They look almost black in the photo.

[dehor4]

Long time fan of baseball, but this is my first post. The reason- I do not like the artificial coloring, I have been a photographer for many years and the photo shop coloring ruins the etegrity of the photographers image.

I look at these old photos and cannot see the old school charm fences, because the faces, and arms are distracting me.

Stop faking these photos up, because it is nauseating.