World War One Color Photos???

Yeah, taking a picture was an extremely formal occasion and would normally only be happening to celebrate an event, so a serious, formal, business like demeanor was necessary.

Also and possibly most importantly, photographs took quite a while for the exposure, so they would have to stand there, perfectly still for a couple of minutes or whatever (as I said, don't know much about photography) and it is very hard to keep a perfect smile for that long.

There was a series on Tv a couple of years ago called World War 1 in colour. I watched some of it. Fascinating! Might have been on BBC. Anyway, you can buy the 6 DVD set on amazon.

Originally posted by wigit
There was a series on Tv a couple of years ago called World War 1 in colour. I watched some of it. Fascinating! Might have been on BBC. Anyway, you can buy the 6 DVD set on amazon.

Yeah. That is the documentary I was talking about.

The series is up on YouTube and Google Video, if anyone is interested. Like Wigit, I would recommend it. Not the best WWI doc by a long shot but the footage is fascinating.

Originally posted by N. Tesla
im not sayin that ebaumsworld is a credible source but as far as im concerned it would be much easier for me to belive that a guy filled some photos in with photoshop then rare colored pictures that were supposedly impossbile survived all this time and were only recently found out.

Strange attitude? Photography was nearly 100 years old by WW1. Modern color photo's started in 1907. Try a history book.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by N. Tesla
im not sayin that ebaumsworld is a credible source but as far as im concerned it would be much easier for me to belive that a guy filled some photos in with photoshop then rare colored pictures that were supposedly impossbile survived all this time and were only recently found out.

Strange attitude? Photography was nearly 100 years old by WW1. Modern color photo's started in 1907. Try a history book.

look all i said was that i believe that its easier to photoshop then "discover" these photographs. thats my opinion. try to stop being arrogant.

Very cool find!


Most folks at the time then did not probably pay much attention due to the method of dye airbrushing and hand coloring techniques. I've done a bit of that early in my education when learning retouching and photo restoration.

Knowing those techniques I could, if I did not know otherwise, tell these are authentic from the colors. The dyes they used commonly had very specific qualities.

I wonder if there were color shots of other things at the time? The war was likely all the news, but maybe the monarchy or government, celebrities or otherwise. Interesting photo historian stuff.

Is there a French equivalent of the Library of Congress? Might find more there.

ZG

[edit on 10/22/2008 by ZeroGhost]

Interesting that the US Military didn't integrate for another 40 years the French had Black troops with them in the lines. They were probably colonial troops. I expect the uniforms didn't looks that neat after a couple bombardments in the rain.

Originally posted by Gamechanger
Didn't think they could do that back then... these are taken by the French apparently.

Great link, I think ill go browse them now. Think of what must have been going through their minds at the time.

Peace

[edit on 23-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by N. Tesla
im not sayin that ebaumsworld is a credible source but as far as im concerned it would be much easier for me to belive that a guy filled some photos in with photoshop then rare colored pictures that were supposedly impossbile survived all this time and were only recently found out.

But it wasn't "supposedly impossbile". I had books back in the 1980's of WW1 which had colour photo's in them. As stated though, they are 99/100 taken from the French POV as they were the only ones with access to the technology.

You can't say pictures were artificially enhanced in books dating, in some cases, from the 1970's. I inherited many of my WW1/WW2 books and encyclopedia of my late Grandfather, so many were from well before the era of digital imagery.

Seems some people are way to quick to cry "photoshop" round here....

Originally posted by stumason
You can't say pictures were artificially enhanced in books dating, in some cases, from the 1970's. I inherited many of my WW1/WW2 books and encyclopedia of my late Grandfather, so many were from well before the era of digital imagery.

My ex wife was a traditional photographic re-toucher who eventually saw an industry collapse due to digital.

Retouching and enhancement artwork on images by brush and otherwise has been around for almost 200 years dating back to 1841.

Anyone who had an old image, who wanted the color added or enhanced, moles removed, or even the restoration of a badly damaged image could have a professional artist do the work on the image itself, and then have it re-shot and a new negative produced. This is the old way.If you want to make a UFO spoof image, the above listed is how you do it.

The new way, is to scan it, and work in the digital domain.

So to say, that old books, couldn't be enhanced is inaccurate, and secondly, color or black and white images of old, can and have benefited from digital techniques of today.

Peace


[edit on 23-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Absolutely amazing.
I was unaware of the ability to take color photos during this time period.
I guess you learn something new everyday.

reply to post by HIFIGUY


Point taken. I suppose I should have clarified I was railing aginst those that cried "photoshop" a la digital fakery.

The books I had were true colour photo's though, not retouched. The technology was available at the time to take colour pictures, as has been stated in this thread AND the original article posted by the OP.