Is It Live or Is It Memorex?

Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o
ld-whiz/
--
teleportation kills

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:50 +0200, android wrote:

Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/famous-bw-photos-turned-color-21-year-old-whiz/

That's an interesting point about the changing of the perception of
reality and I think your comment is valid.

In the end people will favour or disfavour colouring according to
whether or not it supports or contradicts the perception they have
already gained from the monochrome.

The problem is that the real reality remains the same no matter what
the viewer of a photograph may have concluded from a particular image.
In the end, neither the monochrome nor the coloured image may give
rise to a correct perception of reality.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o
ld-whiz/


Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is
colorized IMHO is dead wrong.

--
Ken Hart

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:50 +0200, android wrote:

Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...-21-year-old-w
hiz/

That's an interesting point about the changing of the perception of
reality and I think your comment is valid.

In the end people will favour or disfavour colouring according to
whether or not it supports or contradicts the perception they have
already gained from the monochrome.

Unfortunately lots of people are attracted to color like flies to sugar
cubes. The success of the TMC, Turner Movie Chanel colorization project
shows that. Yet, the movies are fiction and do not aspire to represent
reality anyways. With proper markup it would have been fine with me
since the digitalization project that it financed saved over a 100 000
films, IIRC. Lots of people that just did not watch BW tuned in to
colorized...

The problem is that the real reality remains the same no matter what
the viewer of a photograph may have concluded from a particular image.
In the end, neither the monochrome nor the coloured image may give
rise to a correct perception of reality.

Yes, the perception of reality through media is always a limited window
but when you enter false data you are asking more of critical thinking
than most people can handle. If you, like make Hitler blue eyed then you
world confirm the beliefs in among many some parts of the world that
blue eyed people are evil! No, mine are azure... ;-ppp
--
teleportation kills

On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/famous-bw-photos-turned-color-21-year-old-whiz/


Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is
colorized IMHO is dead wrong.

Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that
photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that
color photographs were taken then.


I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode
switch goes!

Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple
"authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates
supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg
battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos.

--
Ken Hart

On 2017-04-17 22:36:37 +0000, Ken Hart said:

On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/famous-bw-photos-turned-color-21-year-old-whiz/


Using

colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is
colorized IMHO is dead wrong.

Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that
photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that
color photographs were taken then.


I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode
switch goes!

Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple
"authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates
supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg
battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos.

Correct. However, I would say that it was more of a staged shot rather
than fake. The photograph was taken several days after the Battle of
Gettysburg long after the combatants had left the field. The
photographer was not Brady, but Alexander Gardner, and it is doubtful
that Brady ever visited Gettysburg.

Gardner and two of his associates had dragged the dead confederate 40
yards from where they had first found him, to the site of the
photograph. Add to that they used the same body in two other staged
photographs taken in different positions. One of those showed two dead
confederates.

Gardner had disassociated himself from Brady in 1862. It was Gardner
with his close association with Alan Pinkerton, they were both Scots,
which gained him privileged access to battle sites such as
Fredericksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, and to the condemned Lincoln
assassination conspirators and their execution.

Of course staging battle scenes after the event was common in the 19th
Century, and the first example of this was found in the work of the
very first "War photographer" Roger Fenton, with his "Valley of the
Shadow of Death". For that scene long after the battle, he took two
photographs. The first showed a clear dirt road running down the
valley. The second showed the road strewn with hundreds of expended
cannonballs, all placed by Fenton to create a more dramatic scene.
Again, not fake, but staged.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2017041716460738165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2017-04-17 22:36:37 +0000, Ken Hart said:

On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o
ld-whiz/


Using

colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is
colorized IMHO is dead wrong.

Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that
photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that
color photographs were taken then.


I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode
switch goes!

Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple
"authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates
supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg
battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos.

Correct. However, I would say that it was more of a staged shot rather
than fake. The photograph was taken several days after the Battle of
Gettysburg long after the combatants had left the field. The
photographer was not Brady, but Alexander Gardner, and it is doubtful
that Brady ever visited Gettysburg.

Gardner and two of his associates had dragged the dead confederate 40
yards from where they had first found him, to the site of the
photograph. Add to that they used the same body in two other staged
photographs taken in different positions. One of those showed two dead
confederates.

Gardner had disassociated himself from Brady in 1862. It was Gardner
with his close association with Alan Pinkerton, they were both Scots,
which gained him privileged access to battle sites such as
Fredericksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, and to the condemned Lincoln
assassination conspirators and their execution.

Of course staging battle scenes after the event was common in the 19th
Century, and the first example of this was found in the work of the
very first "War photographer" Roger Fenton, with his "Valley of the
Shadow of Death". For that scene long after the battle, he took two
photographs. The first showed a clear dirt road running down the
valley. The second showed the road strewn with hundreds of expended
cannonballs, all placed by Fenton to create a more dramatic scene.
Again, not fake, but staged.

If a photograph is staged then it's not a document depicting a pice of
history but more like a drawing out of memory and thus not documentary
and fake if ti claims to be that.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:36:37 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o
ld-whiz/


Using colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is
colorized IMHO is dead wrong.

Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that
photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that
color photographs were taken then.

It might have made more sense had I not inadvertently left out the
"not" (...color photographs were not taken then.)when I typed the
sentence.


There were, but not of snapshots kind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography#Early_experiments

I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode
switch goes!

Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple
"authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates
supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg
battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos.
--
teleportation kills

On 2017-04-18 18:03:10 +0000, android said:

In article 2017041716460738165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2017-04-17 22:36:37 +0000, Ken Hart said:

On 04/16/2017 10:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:14:52 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 04/16/2017 10:58 AM, android wrote:
Some of us remember when Turner colorized a bulk of classical American
celluloid whilst digitizing it for TCM. I was kinda oki with that but
think that it should have been better announced in the opining credits
so that you, the cineast could desaturate the screen whilst watching the
movie.

What do you think of colorizing of classical documentary photos? They
could end up in history textbooks with color unadvertised or the reader
might not understand the altering of perception of reality that it could
cause...

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/fam...olor-21-year-o
ld-whiz/


Using

colorized photos in a textbook without a notation that it is
colorized IMHO is dead wrong.

Wrong, yes, but a high school or college student may look at that
photograph of Confederate sharpshooter (1863) and not realize that
color photographs were taken then.


I am trying to parse your comment and figure out where the sarcasm mode
switch goes!

Since you brought up the Confederate sharpshooter: I've read a couple
"authorities" who claim that photo is fake anyway. Brady & associates
supposedly posed that corpse in a couple places on the Gettysburg
battlefield, according to some people who have studied the photos.

Correct. However, I would say that it was more of a staged shot rather
than fake. The photograph was taken several days after the Battle of
Gettysburg long after the combatants had left the field. The
photographer was not Brady, but Alexander Gardner, and it is doubtful
that Brady ever visited Gettysburg.

Gardner and two of his associates had dragged the dead confederate 40
yards from where they had first found him, to the site of the
photograph. Add to that they used the same body in two other staged
photographs taken in different positions. One of those showed two dead
confederates.

Gardner had disassociated himself from Brady in 1862. It was Gardner
with his close association with Alan Pinkerton, they were both Scots,
which gained him privileged access to battle sites such as
Fredericksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, and to the condemned Lincoln
assassination conspirators and their execution.

Of course staging battle scenes after the event was common in the 19th
Century, and the first example of this was found in the work of the
very first "War photographer" Roger Fenton, with his "Valley of the
Shadow of Death". For that scene long after the battle, he took two
photographs. The first showed a clear dirt road running down the
valley. The second showed the road strewn with hundreds of expended
cannonballs, all placed by Fenton to create a more dramatic scene.
Again, not fake, but staged.

If a photograph is staged then it's not a document depicting a pice of
history but more like a drawing out of memory and thus not documentary
and fake if ti claims to be that.

The thing to remember is, modern war and combat photography today
(WWII-today) is not what war photography was in 1855 and the mid-19th
Century. In those days there was no combat photography as we have come
to know it. Fenton didn't have the luxury of a Leica M or Nikon F to
shoot and capture the immediacy of combat, or any action at all. He and
those who followed him like Brady and Gardner were hampered by wet
plate photography and mobile darkrooms in covered wagons. Fenton's
developed plates shot in the Crimea took weeks to reach London and they
were toned down by newspaper editors for Victorian sensibilities.

None of those early photographers were in the field at the time of the
action, and were there to record the aftermath rather than the
immediate events. Even then, in the case of Brady and Gardner they
photographed the horror and mortal cost of war. On many Civil War
battle fields the dead were found lying as they fell days before the
photographers came upon them. Most of their work was published weeks,
sometimes months after the event, and there was less of a sense of
achieving historic accuracy than a record of the aftermath of the
event. All with a lot less moral outrage than we would express today if
we were to discover that a contempory shot had been altered, or faked,
or a scene staged. So with Mathew Brady and Alexander Gardner we have
some shots which are not staged, and some which are staged. Also,
because Brady had the distibution and publishing connections in NYC he
became known as "The Civil War" photographer and many famous
photographs he did not shoot have been incorrectly attributed to him.
--
Regards,

Savageduck