Colourisation for or against

[manchesterunitedman1]

Personally i am against it, i prefer B &W as with the older items it best portay's the period, especially around the Victorian and Edwardian, but here is an original example that appeared back in 1907-08.......which back then was a novelty, but it did not seem to catch on. Life has always been Black and White in many respects, a dash of colour helps but.....

https://flic.kr/p/6cMwCx
_________________
To see 20,00++ original items relating to Newton Heath & Manchester Utd 1878-2023 then visit www.flickr.com/photos/manchesterunitedman1/sets to see entire uploads.

1000's more images to be uploaded, to view the latest uploads go to www.flickr.com/photos/manchesterunitedman1/

Click any images 23+ MILLION views to date to the Flickr site since 2007 growing every day. New Uploads weekly. Thank You to one & all for visiting!

[ndg1860]

Being a traditionalist historian, I would agree. However, there are times when using colour may be better.

I have a book coming out next month (or the month after, based on the latest comments from the publisher) and the front cover is an action picture from 1922. That has had colourisation and I think that a colour pic looks a lot better on the cover. The other game, etc, pictures used throughout the book remain as B&W.

This was the original:


The cover is now:
https://www.fairplaypublishing.com.au/collections/fair-play-publishing/products/burning-ambition-the-centenary-of-australia-new-zealand-football-ashes

By the way, if you may be interested in a copy of the book, get back to me and I may be able to assist to cut costs (especially on freight).

[Pete’s Picture Palace]

Making a generalisation, I think colourising an individual player, and also a full team group, isn't too bad - as long as it's done professionally.

But a match action photo with players of both sides should be left as the original black and white. That's because on the pitch during a match the shades change with the light and the weather. Painting one team red and one team blue loses the original meaning and context.

[Tynie Topics]

I think colourising has it's place, it really helps bring a picture to life.

That said, it needs a professional hand, and it doesn't work with all photos either, some are better left alone.
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/footballprogrammes/albums

[Tynie Topics]

ndg1860 wrote:

Being a traditionalist historian, I would agree. However, there are times when using colour may be better. I have a book coming out next month (or the month after, based on the latest comments from the publisher) and the front cover is an action picture from 1922. That has had colourisation and I think that a colour pic looks a lot better on the cover. The other game, etc, pictures used throughout the book remain as B&W. This was the original: The cover is now: https://www.fairplaypublishing.com.au/collections/fair-play-publishing/products/burning-ambition-the-centenary-of-australia-new-zealand-football-ashes By the way, if you may be interested in a copy of the book, get back to me and I may be able to assist to cut costs (especially on freight).

That's a great example of bringing to life what was a fairly poor B&W photo.
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/footballprogrammes/albums

[Dorking]

I love the colourising done by 'Football time and nations'

www.flickr.com/photos/194189308@N04/albums

It helps massively that most of the photos are new to me. I think having them in colour makes you look more closely.

'Interesting' photos where things are happening are fascinating in colour.

Standard (still) black and white headshots to me are quite boring pictures usually and might as well be left b&w

[Pete’s Picture Palace]

Let's not forget that colourising a b/w photo is only an artist's impression as to the actual colours at the time.

I accept it's each to their own. But in comparison to an old b/w headshot, I find modern plastic tat rather boring!

[derby1884]

Some of Laurel & Hardy's work has been "colourised". Someone's gone to a lot of trouble but it doesn't add to theenjoyment for me. If anything the artificiality irritates.
Same with photos.
I suppose they have some novelty value.
_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/derby1884/sets/

[manchesterunitedman1]

Some interesting opinions so far with the vote going at the moment to the purists but only a handful have made any comment.

Thanks to everyone who has so far.
_________________
To see 20,00++ original items relating to Newton Heath & Manchester Utd 1878-2023 then visit www.flickr.com/photos/manchesterunitedman1/sets to see entire uploads.

1000's more images to be uploaded, to view the latest uploads go to www.flickr.com/photos/manchesterunitedman1/

Click any images 23+ MILLION views to date to the Flickr site since 2007 growing every day. New Uploads weekly. Thank You to one & all for visiting!

[denisosh]

In my opinion, colourisation is really important. No doubt there is no competition between the original photo and colourisation, but it has another level of importance. As these colors can provide a sense of calm because they are visual reminders of elements or objects.

[Flaming Pie]

Here’s an interesting one . 1933 Wembley Everton’s Dixie Dean receiving the F A Cup

[Five and In]

Each to their own, but give me an old black and white photo any day of the week over a colourised one.

I understand why some people like ones where the colour has been added, but in my collection of old Spurs photos, I don't have any.

The one thing that I don't like is where just part of an image has been colourised, like a player for example.
I know the idea is for that player to stand out, but for me those ones just look horrible.

[Flaming Pie]

It might have already been done, but l can see some talented artist turning some of these iconic images into oil paintings, with limited edition prints. I think it has already been done with old boxing photos, horse-racing , golf etc. Some iconic football images that spring to mind : George Best European Cup Final Goal, Banks great save from Pele, Bobby Moore shaking hands with Pele, Maradona hand of God goal. Thinking about , it must have been done in the past. I did once pick up at a car boot a copy of a painting Burnley v Spurs FA Cup Final 1962, which l think was presented to each League club for some centenary . I got Tranmere Rovers one, which was being thrown out!

[ramsfan7]

For me, I don't like them - they look false, the shading, colours, textures should vary from person to person and there is a lot of guesswork on skin tone, hair colour and so on by the 'artist' or AI program.
Give me a black and white anyday.

The other aspect is one of copyright - colourising an existing image and potentially selling prints is breaking the copyright of the owner and liable to civil claims.

[Flaming Pie]

You raise some interesting points. I’m not certain, but l think copyright on photographs runs out after 100 years? If someone then decides to colourise them do they then have copyright ? Here’s a couple of interesting Wigan Borough pics

[ramsfan7]

I think it something like 70 years after the death of the photographer, but as many are done by professional studios, they may still be operating and still hold copyright.
Copyright is also inherited to family, although one suspects many don't know or realise.

In many cases it will be a case of taking the chance the copyright owner doesn't find out.

It is a minefield, but there are government/intellectual property sheets that can be downloaded that explain things

[ndg1860]

I think this would differ in various countries. For example in Australia, the rule is:

The Australian Copyright Act defines a variety of periods of copyright protection. The main category that applies is:

Life of creator plus 70 years, for
* artistic works
* photographs taken from 1 January 1955.

Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright.

Obviously, the first part of this would only apply after 2025

The ownership of a photograph is also of importance and varies. For example -

In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:

* A photograph taken by a photographer as part of their terms of their employment is owned by their employer. (Except in the case where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, in which case the photographer will retain the right to control inclusion of the photograph in a book or as part of a hard copy news clipping service).

* For a photograph taken prior to 30 July 1998, the copyright in photograph which was commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person. For a photograph taken after 30 July 1998, the copyright in a photograph commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person only if it was taken for a 'private or domestic purpose' (such as a family portrait or a wedding photograph).

[ramsfan7]

https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/copyright

[pastpirate]

I certainly think it can be better to have a colourised pic. Here is a pic of the Rovers squad at the 1st game we ever played. In Black and white it doesn't look too good to me.
_________________
I am not gas, I am a Pirate.

www.bristolroversmemorabilia.weebly.com The definitive list of Bristol Rovers programmes

[pastpirate]

Now the colourised version. Better I think
_________________
I am not gas, I am a Pirate.

www.bristolroversmemorabilia.weebly.com The definitive list of Bristol Rovers programmes