Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 76 of 76

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mt. View, CA, above San Jose
    Posts
    18,009
    Blog Entries
    1
    Nice job, CTrane!

  2. #62

  3. #63
    Here's Kansas City Municipal Stadium colorized

    KC_Municipal Stadium4 1966.jpg

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Galesburg. Illinois
    Posts
    596
    Did this one today of Babe Martin 1945 St. Louis Browns

    Also video of Babe at 90 years old playing baseball.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Dto7; 04-25-2012 at 06:14 PM.

  5. #65
    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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mt. View, CA, above San Jose
    Posts
    18,009
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by esplanade View Post
    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.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burgess View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mt. View, CA, above San Jose
    Posts
    18,009
    Blog Entries
    1
    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.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Galesburg. Illinois
    Posts
    596
    Iron Davis 1912 New York Highlanders
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Galesburg. Illinois
    Posts
    596
    This is one of my favorite Babe Ruth photos and I had to colorize it. I think it's from 1929?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    5,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Dto7 View Post
    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

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Galesburg. Illinois
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by BSmile View Post
    Excellent work Dto7!!!
    Great colors...very "photo real".
    Cheers! ~B
    Thank you very much

  13. #73
    great job. the eyes are the toughest part, right?
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mt. View, CA, above San Jose
    Posts
    18,009
    Blog Entries
    1
    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.

  15. #75
    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.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Far NE Philadelphia
    Posts
    7,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Dto7 View Post
    This is one of my favorite Babe Ruth photos and I had to colorize it. I think it's from 1929?
    Maybe I'm still recovering from NY's Eve, but I'll be damned if the guy in the front row above Ruth's shoe doesn't look like Homer Simpson when I don't have my glasses on.
    "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •