8 ms·

It's not 'just' the work of Photoshop tho. There is a link to ones closer to the original in this discussion thread, and those are still extremely impressive.

by shawnc 14y ago

It's not 'just' the work of Photoshop tho. There is a link to ones closer to the original in this discussion thread, and those are still extremely impressive. All in all, I stand by my statement. These are accurate depictions of the color at that time, and as ludicrous as it seems - my brain is blown away that there was so much color. I know obviously there was - but years and years of my visual representation of that time period tries to tell me differently.

001sky 14y ago
my brain is blown away that there was so much color -These image captures are 3 layer BW stills, the color is from a secondary process. Its a logic thing. The colour you are seeing is from photoshop[1,2,3]. Its about as 'real' as the latest issue of XYZ magazine's cover art.[4] That's not to in any way disparage it, but the reason they look "contemporary" is because of the way the images have been post-processed in photoshop. It would be trivial, for example, to make them look like they came out of instagram. Just a tech-point. Its slightly odd nobody else pointed this out, that's all. The guy was ahead of his time in thinking through the RGB seperation process, that's what is really brilliant...no doubt about that. [Edit: Obviously, the presence of measurable electromagnetic radiation on the Earth's atmosphere, and/or its reflectivity, is the same now as it ever was. BW light sensitive emulsions have been very good for a long time. Viz, Ansel Adams, Ed Weston, etc.] _________________ Notes: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space [4] Literally. Digital sensor = BW. They are filtered into RGB monoochrome images, just like this guy pioneered. Then, they are reconstructed using SW. So, to the end user, it does not matter if you are starting from digital and/or analogue base images. The end images are literally the function of the SW and the Display (ie, all modern). If they were prints, they would be constrained by the tech of the print medium, etc.
- nessus42 14y ago
  I'm not really sure what the point of your assertions is. I think that everyone here understands that they did not have the technology 100 years ago to produce prints, transparencies, or projections that look this good. A seeming insinuation of what you are claiming is that we are looking at is a fabrication, rather than an accurate representation of a prior reality. That insinuation, if present, would seem to be groundless. What's amazing is that they had the technology and wherewithal 100 years ago to preserve the data that would let us accurately see today through a window looking 100 years into the past. Or at least as much so as any typical camera today gives us an accurate window into the recent past.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Understood, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. I am not "asserting," I am describing how black and white images are represented as color. These images are BLACK AND WHITE until they go into PS. Get it? The color of a landscape today or 100 years ago is no different. The fact that you could record monochromatic images in 1912 is not news. In fact, the larger formats favoured in the era (viz, weston, adams, etc) blow away a 16 megapixel digital sensor. The REPRESENTATIONS of colour look contemporary because they ARE they are litereally using 16bit colour spaces and colour gamuts (adobe 1998, prophotoRGB, etc) that are less than 20 years old. The images are not airbrushed but the Colour, saturation, contrast, sharpening (localized contrast) that give these images their "look" are about as "Real" as instagram on your iPhone. In fact, you could put instagram image filters on top of these files, pretty easily. To get that "Retro" look? Ironic, Eh? There is no secret to it. Its just odd that a with so many computer-literate people here there are so many comments that beg-the-question if people understand what they are looking at. There is a simple, genius technique at work here: shoot a BW image with a colour filter. That is not at all high tech, was not even in 1912 (see y/b sky filters, eg). Its very interesting to do some legwork on digital colour if you are unfamiliar with it. The images are, for all intents and purposes, similar to what we are looking at from MARS. Hope this helps. Your tone is slightly misplaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
    - nessus42 14y ago
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  The are intensity recordings subject to filtering at specific frequencies of light. There's no conceptual difference between this process and that of 3-color film photography, in which three monochrome silver-halide images subject to filtration are made, and the color is added in, during processing, chemically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography#.22Modern.22_color_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography#.22Modern.22... Or NASA's various color photographs, most of which are created using three successive images through different filters (and that's for true-color images, rather than false-color images in which the finished color range is entirely an artifact based on EMR outside the human visual range). Or for CCD-based color photography in which, again, intensity recording based on filtered sensors is presented by adding in the colors selected for by the filters. So long as the recording and reproduction processes are faithful to the colors present in the original image, the colors are authentic. As authentic as anything that's a copy of an original impression can be.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    So long as the recording and reproduction processes are faithful to the colors present in the original image The faithfulnees is at the monochrome level. The recomposition, if done digitally, is impacted by the scanner, the working colour space, and the output colour space. color chemistry has unique set[1] properties (eg polaroid) while digital has far more flexibility [2]. From there is more a question of style than authenticty per-se.[3] ______________ [1] The colour is set once, and by the chemists. Kodachrome will not look like Velvia will not look like Polaroid, etc. You can digitally mimic these looks, however. As instagram has shown, to good effect. [2] Non-destructive 16 bit editing, various colour spaces, etc etc. [3] We have limited idea what colours look like on Mars, etc

by shawnc 14y ago

001sky 14y ago

my brain is blown away that there was so much color -These image captures are 3 layer BW stills, the color is from a secondary process. Its a logic thing. The colour you are seeing is from photoshop[1,2,3]. Its about as 'real' as the latest issue of XYZ magazine's cover art.[4] That's not to in any way disparage it, but the reason they look "contemporary" is because of the way the images have been post-processed in photoshop. It would be trivial, for example, to make them look like they came out of instagram. Just a tech-point. Its slightly odd nobody else pointed this out, that's all. The guy was ahead of his time in thinking through the RGB seperation process, that's what is really brilliant...no doubt about that. [Edit: Obviously, the presence of measurable electromagnetic radiation on the Earth's atmosphere, and/or its reflectivity, is the same now as it ever was. BW light sensitive emulsions have been very good for a long time. Viz, Ansel Adams, Ed Weston, etc.] _________________ Notes: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space [4] Literally. Digital sensor = BW. They are filtered into RGB monoochrome images, just like this guy pioneered. Then, they are reconstructed using SW. So, to the end user, it does not matter if you are starting from digital and/or analogue base images. The end images are literally the function of the SW and the Display (ie, all modern). If they were prints, they would be constrained by the tech of the print medium, etc.

nessus42 14y ago
I'm not really sure what the point of your assertions is. I think that everyone here understands that they did not have the technology 100 years ago to produce prints, transparencies, or projections that look this good. A seeming insinuation of what you are claiming is that we are looking at is a fabrication, rather than an accurate representation of a prior reality. That insinuation, if present, would seem to be groundless. What's amazing is that they had the technology and wherewithal 100 years ago to preserve the data that would let us accurately see today through a window looking 100 years into the past. Or at least as much so as any typical camera today gives us an accurate window into the recent past.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Understood, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. I am not "asserting," I am describing how black and white images are represented as color. These images are BLACK AND WHITE until they go into PS. Get it? The color of a landscape today or 100 years ago is no different. The fact that you could record monochromatic images in 1912 is not news. In fact, the larger formats favoured in the era (viz, weston, adams, etc) blow away a 16 megapixel digital sensor. The REPRESENTATIONS of colour look contemporary because they ARE they are litereally using 16bit colour spaces and colour gamuts (adobe 1998, prophotoRGB, etc) that are less than 20 years old. The images are not airbrushed but the Colour, saturation, contrast, sharpening (localized contrast) that give these images their "look" are about as "Real" as instagram on your iPhone. In fact, you could put instagram image filters on top of these files, pretty easily. To get that "Retro" look? Ironic, Eh? There is no secret to it. Its just odd that a with so many computer-literate people here there are so many comments that beg-the-question if people understand what they are looking at. There is a simple, genius technique at work here: shoot a BW image with a colour filter. That is not at all high tech, was not even in 1912 (see y/b sky filters, eg). Its very interesting to do some legwork on digital colour if you are unfamiliar with it. The images are, for all intents and purposes, similar to what we are looking at from MARS. Hope this helps. Your tone is slightly misplaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
  - nessus42 14y ago
dredmorbius 14y ago
The are intensity recordings subject to filtering at specific frequencies of light. There's no conceptual difference between this process and that of 3-color film photography, in which three monochrome silver-halide images subject to filtration are made, and the color is added in, during processing, chemically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography#.22Modern.22_color_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography#.22Modern.22... Or NASA's various color photographs, most of which are created using three successive images through different filters (and that's for true-color images, rather than false-color images in which the finished color range is entirely an artifact based on EMR outside the human visual range). Or for CCD-based color photography in which, again, intensity recording based on filtered sensors is presented by adding in the colors selected for by the filters. So long as the recording and reproduction processes are faithful to the colors present in the original image, the colors are authentic. As authentic as anything that's a copy of an original impression can be.
- 001sky 14y ago
  So long as the recording and reproduction processes are faithful to the colors present in the original image The faithfulnees is at the monochrome level. The recomposition, if done digitally, is impacted by the scanner, the working colour space, and the output colour space. color chemistry has unique set[1] properties (eg polaroid) while digital has far more flexibility [2]. From there is more a question of style than authenticty per-se.[3] ______________ [1] The colour is set once, and by the chemists. Kodachrome will not look like Velvia will not look like Polaroid, etc. You can digitally mimic these looks, however. As instagram has shown, to good effect. [2] Non-destructive 16 bit editing, various colour spaces, etc etc. [3] We have limited idea what colours look like on Mars, etc