11 ms·

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

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
  I understand how this type of color photography works, as does anyone who read the article, since the article explained it. It's basically the same as Technicolor, which was invented only a few years after these photos were taken. Though Technicolor was only shot using two colors rather than three until the early '30s. But all color photography has typically worked by effectively taking three monochromatic images and then combining them into one "full color" image. As to the purpose of your post, no I still don't get it. You're either "describing" what anyone who knows anything about photography already knows, or it's a criticism of these photographs as being much less an accurate representation of color reality than modern photography is. If your "description" is supposed to entail that, then that putative entailment seems false to me. All color photography is just a gross approximation of reality, but with the aim of the approximations not being overly noticeable to the human eye. Kind of like how MP3's are only a gross approximation of the actual sound, but for which the aim is to be psycho-acoustically accurate. As to anyone asserting that the original photographer was using some space-aged technology, where did anyone ever state such a thing? All I've seen is amazement over seeing photographs from the time that preserved information such that it could be later rendered in a way that we're not used to experiencing in photographs from that time period. Don't take the joy out of life. Or maybe you wish to assert that the process used here to make the contemporary rendering of these photos is little different than it would be to take the original negatives for old technicolor films from the '30s and use them to produce more modern and psycho-visually accurate color images. Or to do the same for photography from any time period and use the data contained in it to make more accurate renderings. Well, those might also be interesting projects!
  - 001sky 14y ago
    I understand how this type of color photography works, as does anyone who read the article, since the article explained it. It's basically the same as Technicolor That sentence says, no you don't understand. The images are monochromes, set with chemistry. 100yrs ago. Then they are scanned into a computer. Imported into photoshop. The color is from photoshop. The working color space is from photoshop. The output color space is from photoshop. Ergo, they look like photoshop. PJ's use photshop all the time, there is nothing nefarious. But the "look" is a function of the post-processing. Provided a somewhat reasonable monochrome scan quality. In fact, images are shot on overcast days to maximize the post-processing range of the output images. Thats how you max tonal seperability and ability to punch the color without blowing the dynamic range. Its counterintuitive, but true. A modern look is a dull image input + aggressive tonal controls. This is exactly what NASA does from the digital files from Mars. Or what the NY times does on its news stories, etc. Its "cool". Its just different than what you think it is.
001sky 14y ago
[I'm not really sure] [the point of your assertions is]. [I think that] [A seeming insinuation of what you are claiming is...] [That insinuation, if present, would seem to be groundless]. Rejecting a false assertion might be clever if it were not falsely asserted [in the first place]. But anyone can play this game. Its almost as good as the false [false dichotomy] that follows. This is pure [classic] trolling. And as HN readers will see...it continues in this thread ad infinitum from here.
- nessus42 14y ago
  > This is pure [classic] trolling. If anyone here is a troll, it is you. Only you haven't been coherent enough to be trolling in the traditional fashion. It seems perhaps that you have invented a new style of trolling: State things with an affected air of authority, but never make it exactly clear just what your thesis is. Instead, just kind of ramble on, juxtaposing incontrovertible facts -- such as, "The images are monochromes, set with chemistry. 100yrs ago" -- with enigmatic and dismissive assertions such as "Its "cool". Its just different than what you think it is." Then when anyone tries to pin you down by providing a paraphrasing of what they think your claims are, start whining about straw men and false dichotomies and how your expertise should not be questioned. Very clever! I think we've discovered your true genius. Or maybe you are just bipolar [fnord]. I cannot say.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    nessus42: I got my SB from MIT in Philosophy. MIT's Philosophy program is considered to be in the top few in the country, as is its Linguistics. I was taught creative writing by Joe Haldeman, photography in dark rooms that had been built by Minor White, psychology by Susan Carey, etc. I normally don't call people out. But You're a MIT Philosophy Major spouting off. You know how bad these arguments are. This is my problem. With this type of background there is no excuse. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to a normal HN reader who may be lacking in technicals or experience. English as a second language. But these argument forms are rhetorical garbage. I'm not sure in what decade you were at MIT. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe these simple-by-modern-standard ideas, techniques, and technologies are beyond than your training in photography? You owe more to the HN community than that. You owe everybody here some intellectual honesty. This is the 21st century. We are deconstructing perception and re-constructing it image by image, pixel by pixel. And tools and techniques that have been field tested for two decades. With cognitive psychology in mind. Its a long way from Minor White's Darkroom. These are now the tools of the Documentary photographer.[1] I happen to have first-hand experience with this. Years worth of training. In school and in the field. I don't need to "argue" a point when demonstrating or illustrating a standard technique, it's superflous. You confuse actual experience with an "affected air of authority." The point of my contribution on this thread is to share some experience. So, if nothing else, people can talk more precisely. About what they are looking <at>. I'm not hear to rain on a parade about what people do or don't <see>. Images are ultimately viewed for there enjoyment regardless of provenence. Time for more enjoying. ______________ [1] A Rigorous and interdiscilinary book, written by a Philosopher: The Objective Eye: Color, Form, and Reality in the Theory of Art (Oxford, 2006) http://www.amazon.com/The-Objective-Eye-Reality-Theory/dp/0226365530/ref=wl_it_dp_o_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=X0SFLHGOYYDV&coliid=I3079JL4YEDA9H http://www.amazon.com/The-Objective-Eye-Reality-Theory/dp/02...

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
I understand how this type of color photography works, as does anyone who read the article, since the article explained it. It's basically the same as Technicolor, which was invented only a few years after these photos were taken. Though Technicolor was only shot using two colors rather than three until the early '30s. But all color photography has typically worked by effectively taking three monochromatic images and then combining them into one "full color" image. As to the purpose of your post, no I still don't get it. You're either "describing" what anyone who knows anything about photography already knows, or it's a criticism of these photographs as being much less an accurate representation of color reality than modern photography is. If your "description" is supposed to entail that, then that putative entailment seems false to me. All color photography is just a gross approximation of reality, but with the aim of the approximations not being overly noticeable to the human eye. Kind of like how MP3's are only a gross approximation of the actual sound, but for which the aim is to be psycho-acoustically accurate. As to anyone asserting that the original photographer was using some space-aged technology, where did anyone ever state such a thing? All I've seen is amazement over seeing photographs from the time that preserved information such that it could be later rendered in a way that we're not used to experiencing in photographs from that time period. Don't take the joy out of life. Or maybe you wish to assert that the process used here to make the contemporary rendering of these photos is little different than it would be to take the original negatives for old technicolor films from the '30s and use them to produce more modern and psycho-visually accurate color images. Or to do the same for photography from any time period and use the data contained in it to make more accurate renderings. Well, those might also be interesting projects!
- 001sky 14y ago
  I understand how this type of color photography works, as does anyone who read the article, since the article explained it. It's basically the same as Technicolor That sentence says, no you don't understand. The images are monochromes, set with chemistry. 100yrs ago. Then they are scanned into a computer. Imported into photoshop. The color is from photoshop. The working color space is from photoshop. The output color space is from photoshop. Ergo, they look like photoshop. PJ's use photshop all the time, there is nothing nefarious. But the "look" is a function of the post-processing. Provided a somewhat reasonable monochrome scan quality. In fact, images are shot on overcast days to maximize the post-processing range of the output images. Thats how you max tonal seperability and ability to punch the color without blowing the dynamic range. Its counterintuitive, but true. A modern look is a dull image input + aggressive tonal controls. This is exactly what NASA does from the digital files from Mars. Or what the NY times does on its news stories, etc. Its "cool". Its just different than what you think it is.

001sky 14y ago

[I'm not really sure] [the point of your assertions is]. [I think that] [A seeming insinuation of what you are claiming is...] [That insinuation, if present, would seem to be groundless]. Rejecting a false assertion might be clever if it were not falsely asserted [in the first place]. But anyone can play this game. Its almost as good as the false [false dichotomy] that follows. This is pure [classic] trolling. And as HN readers will see...it continues in this thread ad infinitum from here.

nessus42 14y ago
> This is pure [classic] trolling. If anyone here is a troll, it is you. Only you haven't been coherent enough to be trolling in the traditional fashion. It seems perhaps that you have invented a new style of trolling: State things with an affected air of authority, but never make it exactly clear just what your thesis is. Instead, just kind of ramble on, juxtaposing incontrovertible facts -- such as, "The images are monochromes, set with chemistry. 100yrs ago" -- with enigmatic and dismissive assertions such as "Its "cool". Its just different than what you think it is." Then when anyone tries to pin you down by providing a paraphrasing of what they think your claims are, start whining about straw men and false dichotomies and how your expertise should not be questioned. Very clever! I think we've discovered your true genius. Or maybe you are just bipolar [fnord]. I cannot say.
- 001sky 14y ago
  nessus42: I got my SB from MIT in Philosophy. MIT's Philosophy program is considered to be in the top few in the country, as is its Linguistics. I was taught creative writing by Joe Haldeman, photography in dark rooms that had been built by Minor White, psychology by Susan Carey, etc. I normally don't call people out. But You're a MIT Philosophy Major spouting off. You know how bad these arguments are. This is my problem. With this type of background there is no excuse. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to a normal HN reader who may be lacking in technicals or experience. English as a second language. But these argument forms are rhetorical garbage. I'm not sure in what decade you were at MIT. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe these simple-by-modern-standard ideas, techniques, and technologies are beyond than your training in photography? You owe more to the HN community than that. You owe everybody here some intellectual honesty. This is the 21st century. We are deconstructing perception and re-constructing it image by image, pixel by pixel. And tools and techniques that have been field tested for two decades. With cognitive psychology in mind. Its a long way from Minor White's Darkroom. These are now the tools of the Documentary photographer.[1] I happen to have first-hand experience with this. Years worth of training. In school and in the field. I don't need to "argue" a point when demonstrating or illustrating a standard technique, it's superflous. You confuse actual experience with an "affected air of authority." The point of my contribution on this thread is to share some experience. So, if nothing else, people can talk more precisely. About what they are looking <at>. I'm not hear to rain on a parade about what people do or don't <see>. Images are ultimately viewed for there enjoyment regardless of provenence. Time for more enjoying. ______________ [1] A Rigorous and interdiscilinary book, written by a Philosopher: The Objective Eye: Color, Form, and Reality in the Theory of Art (Oxford, 2006) http://www.amazon.com/The-Objective-Eye-Reality-Theory/dp/0226365530/ref=wl_it_dp_o_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=X0SFLHGOYYDV&coliid=I3079JL4YEDA9H http://www.amazon.com/The-Objective-Eye-Reality-Theory/dp/02...