Some might think it works

Agree with that Rich, very interesting post though, and quite nostalgic, :agree::thumbs:
 
I guess at least they've kept the colours fairly muted and not gone all retro!.... i'm divided on this, yes i think some do work though it's sort of changing the past, I have seen this done on fb and it looked hideous if i'm honest, but these, well, they aren't so bad
 
It begs the question: if the photographer had the means to take the pictures in colour, would they have?
I know the capability was there for some of them, I mean did the photographer have access to colour film at the time?
 
They make great viewing, creates a totally different view of historical figures that we've only ever seen in B&W - I'm still absorbing why it feels so different to seeing mono vs colour today, it's probably because we have the option.
 
It doesn't seem "right" to me, firstly the colours look like they have been made to look like they are vintage, i'm not sure how to describe them but they don't sit well with me.
The other thing is that this is all unsubstantiated guesswork from the retoucher and in all likelihood are very different to the actual scene.
 
It's obviously interpretation with artistic license, I can't really comment on the colour 'style' as I've only viewed on my phone. I like it though.
 
Apart from the last 3 or 4 I think there are really good
 
It's an opinion. I think the concept is crass. Not to mention lacking in imagination. Got no ideas of your own? Take a great photo and ruin it. Wow. Maybe HDR would improve them?:D
 
I gather it's your opinion, I was just asking you to expand on why you think it's crass.
 
I think they look great and make us look again at an image although possibly iconic has to some extent been forgotten, although for me I enjoyed the comments that followed and how easily they got sidetracked :rolleyes:
 
If nothing else, they remind me how utterly gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor (original was great pic tho') and Audrey Hepburn were, even squatting by a bin..!
 
I think some of those have worked really well. Obviously they've taken a few famous people but I think the more successful are the unknown ones, like the blitz boy with his bear.
 
jamiewednesday said:
If nothing else, they remind me how utterly gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor (original was great pic tho') and Audrey Hepburn were, even squatting by a bin..!
Click to expand...
Very much agree
H
 
grotty said:
I gather it's your opinion, I was just asking you to expand on why you think it's crass.
Click to expand...
"Crass: showing no intelligence or sensitivity." I think that sums them up. For me.

I doubt I can change the mind of someone who disagrees with me. The internet doesn't work that way. All I can do is say it how I see it. S

ome of those photos have been powerful images for decades. They didn't need colourising then and they don't now. It adds nothing to the originals, just turns powerful images into wall decoration.

It's a hotly debated topic...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/08/vandalism.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/ohmyeffingod.html
 
I know the definition of crass, I was curious as to why you thought they were so. I'm not of the opinion that you're trying to change anyone's mind, as I'm not out to change anyone else's. It's a forum - to discuss opinions.

In the light of the day I can easily recognise that iconic images of iconic figures can be very emotive to some. Having looked through them again, I personally do enjoy viewing them, perhaps except the H-bomb test shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top