previous post next post  

Colorizing War

By The Armorer on January 30, 2005 | | Comments (20)

The Crimean War, US Civil War, Boer War, WWI, WWII, and Korea, are, in my mind, "black and white" wars. Not in terms of war aims and justifications - but because they were photographed in black and white. For wars prior to that, much of what passes for visuals are oil paintings, in color. Even the wars of the ancients are that way for me - as that is how the artists of later centuries painted their visions of what they were like. Not so the wars listed above. They were the wars covered when black and white phototgraphy was king. The wars since have been covered in color.

So I always have a little sense of bemusement when I visit actual sites, and they don't match my mental images. Or go to museums and see just how colorful camo schemes could be.

I don't mind Ted Turner's colorization of black and white movies. You'll notice it's a trend that didn't really last long - partially because they discovered that the Directors and Cameramen and Wardrobe Designers and Set Decorators knew what they were doing - they understood their medium and chose colors that would look right IN BLACK AND WHITE. And sometimes they just looked weird in color. Sometimes it worked, however, and unlike some purists, I didn't mind.

Same thing is true for colorizing old photos. It won't be exact, but it will be close - and things will come alive in ways that black and white doesn't. Some pictures - the flag raising on Iwo Jima for example, to me are just better photos in B&W, others, like the shot I show you in this post, benefit from colorization.

We've got the technology, we don't damage the originals, why not? If I ever remember to buy a lottery ticket, much less a winning one, or Ted Kennedy wraps himself around a tree because he was getting **** and driving drunk and it turns out I'm his unacknowledged illegitimate child and I inherit a chunk of Kennedy money - well, after getting SWWBO a new Castle, expanding the holdings, and indulging my desire for an armored car... I just might set up an operation devoted to colorizing those wars.

Especially the mundane. Like this.

Hat tip to CAPT H for sharing the link.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

20 Comments

By Stormy Dragon on January 30, 2005 6:10 PM
In the case of WWII, at least, the pictures aren't necessarily colorized after the fact. The US military did have color film during WWII. The History Channel used to have a series based on the color footage shot during WWII that was called _The Colors of War_ that was rathe interesting.
 
By Justthisguy on January 30, 2005 8:44 PM
I think there was a book called "The Agfachrome War" full of pictures of Germans doing things in other peoples' countries, and a couple I've seen in the local B&N with Kodachrome images by US guys. One had some very haunting, creepy (because we now know what was gonna happen) images taken around the Philipines (sp?) in November, 1941 or so. Blue fatigues and P-35s oh my! Oh in your picture, there, is that guy doing what I think he's doing?
 
By SangerM on January 30, 2005 9:01 PM
Yeah, he's voting. . . He'll have a wet finger when he comes out. :-)
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2005 9:02 PM
Of course he is... why else would *I* have chosen it?
 
By David Blue on January 30, 2005 9:19 PM
Masson, P. ed. 1985, _World war II in colour: a photographic history with 650 illustrations in full colour_, Grolier Enterprises, Dansbury Connecticut. Trivia for Saving Private Ryan, from the Internet Movie Database (IMDB): Although director Steven Spielberg reduced the color saturation of the movie by 60% for artistic reasons, both major American satellite providers (DirecTV and Dish) and numerous cable TV providers turned up the chroma gain to re-enhance the color saturation to normal-looking levels when broadcasting the movie. They did this because on the first day or two of the movie's broadcast run, their customer service centers were swamped with calls from viewers complaining that something was wrong with the color.
 
By Justthisguy on January 31, 2005 12:25 AM
On Looking at it Again: That picture is thought-inducing in so many ways. Did anyone notice the little ogees cut at the extremities of the sidewalls? Not functional, obviously done for esthetic reasons. And then there is what looks like a mown lawn abutting some shrubbery, backed up by a young forest. And then,again, why does a soldier, or any other adult male human, worry about visual concealment from one direction (Ok, 3) and not from others. I mean, do it privately, or do it publicly, but what is this half-ass concealment? Inquiring minds want to know. Oh yeah, that path of sticks looks like an evil stumble-trap for us poor drunkards, to me.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2005 6:11 AM
After all that, you neglected to mention the fact that its been camouflage-painted? I could go the cheap route, and note it's French, as if that's the answer. And on days when it's muddy, that path of sticks would be a welcome pathway... As for the rest - you obviously haven't been in the Army serving anywhere near a "Headquarters in the Field," where fripperies of this type are de rigeur. Oops. 'Nother French word.
 
By AFSister on January 31, 2005 10:00 AM
ew. Wet finger after voting image is burning into my mind....MAKE IT STOP! (but don't make it stop until I'm done laughing, of course)
 
By cw4billt on January 31, 2005 1:55 PM
Justthisguy - The half-fast concealment is more than likely oriented toward the prevailing wind. T'would nevah do, don't'cha know, to have the Field Grades wandering about displaying more dampness than would adhere to a finger...
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on January 31, 2005 4:05 PM
"In the end, Major Petite decided writing his initials would suffice." Cheers JMH
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2005 5:21 PM
ROTFLMAOASTC! John - too droll, by far!
 
By cw4billt on January 31, 2005 9:30 PM
"Oui." Or, in this instance, "oui-oui."
 
By Justthisguy on February 1, 2005 12:59 AM
Dang, Capt. H, you must have been reading my mind. I had thought of making another post about contraventile micturition, but got all timid on thinking that I didn't want to get a reputation for that sort of thing. I now understand that all is already known anyway, so one might as well write what he thinks. I, for one, welcome our new L33t hax0r masters at F0rt M34d3.
 
By Justthisguy on February 1, 2005 1:15 AM
Um, I wrote "Capt.H" above when I meant to write "Bill." Yeah, I noticed the camouflage, decided to stop typing before the weirdness list got too long. I think the ethanol is winning. 'nite, all.
 
By SangerM on February 1, 2005 1:58 AM
Ok, JustThisGuy, it ain't often I need to look something up, but this made me do it: "contraventile micturition." Unfortunately, the only reference to this phrase that I found in dictionaries, or even Google, was to this: "Don't waste your time, Ma'am, trying to educate suchlike folks. That would be like engaging in contraventile micturition." It was very frustrating to say the least, to spend the time searching only to end up where I started, kind of like pissing into the wind. You know? P.S. That's twice. Third time, you get a reputation for that sort of thing . . -SangerM :-)
 
By cw4billt on February 1, 2005 8:41 AM
JTG - No need to be confused--just remember: 1. JMH = Tanker, walking wikipedia on the subject of armor, devilishly droll. 2. WST = Aviator, shambling 80s Colliers' on the subject of aviation, impishly droll. See? Easy as finding a pizza joint outside the M34d3 m41n g4t3.
 
By SangerM on February 1, 2005 11:34 AM
Wasn't M34d3 that Civil War guy? T'is a puzzle, to be sure . . .
 
By Boquisucio on February 1, 2005 3:22 PM
Color photographs have been around for longer than what most people think. I once saw a color pic from the 1880's - not colorized, but from original color plates. The subject matter was very mundane: A family on a Sunday jaunt through the countryside, if I remember correctly. As I said, the technology has been around, its just that until the color developing process was automatized, it was extremely difficult (and expensive) to make it work cheaply and reliably. If I remember correctly, Black&White development is a three-step process in the dark room. Whereas Color development is a seven-step process, which requires an inordinate amount of skill, and patience to work and skill for each and every step along the way... Nevermind constant monitoring of the chemical agents etc. Boquisucio
 
By cw4billt on February 1, 2005 7:31 PM
Absolutely correct. And color movies predated "talkies." The chemicals used in both color film and the processing thereof were both expensive and in relatively short supply, so some nimrod in the War Office declared them war-essential and stockpiled them. Wasn't until later (mid-1943 or so) that somebody asked, "What's all this stuff used for besides color photography?" When the reply was, "Errr--nothing," the US military got into color photography just in time to make all those great stock shots used in every WWII aerial epic for the past 50 years [Opening: aerial of Pacific, looking straight down. Cue Zero, cue guns, cue trail of burning avgas, cue F4U flying cluelessly through buddy's tracers, cue immense fireball]...
 
By Boquisuio on February 1, 2005 8:54 PM
Yep, Leave it to the beancounters to always spoil things. Boquisucio