Russian model on the Spanish Steps in Rome, Italy
I find it very interesting to see what PhotoShop's Neural Filter "Colorize" picks for color and tonality. For example it seems to have a very limited repertoire for lip color, a very pleasing but narrow palette for skin/tone skin color and a tendency in an open air scene such as this to push blue tones into the background. The steps, as most people who have toured Rome know, are neutral to warm in color and have no blue component. But on the other hand I like the deep blue jacket on the out of focus woman just to our left of the main subject's head. And I especially like that the programming paid attention to the woman just over our main subject's shoulder; again, to our left, making sure the coloration was pleasing on her face.
I find it odd that the grouping of three people in the upper left of the frame are rendered in black and white/grayscale.
This image conversion was done in one click. I did not make any changes to the machine selections. It's impressive, at least to me, that the filter does such a good job on a first try.
So, what are the ethics involved in colorizing old black and white work? I think it all depends on how transparent you are willing to be and what the final use of the images will be. We didn't think of the implications when we were photographing these scenes in black and white in 1995 because we didn't really imagine that a conversion to color from our black and white film stock could be so simple and so convincing.
If I were submitting images to news magazines I wouldn't step over the line and convert a black and white file to color but for my own enjoyment I think it's fun to take an "image by image" approach. And as one blogger often says, "As long as no one is getting hurt...."
I'd be interested in your comments about this subject. While I no longer shoot black and white film I do have a tens of thousands of black and white negatives from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that I'd like to pore through and perhaps scan in enough for a portrait show at my favorite gallery. What are your thoughts?
17 comments:
It's all about creating art, not photojournalism. I do not see any ethical problems and quite frankly I don't feel you need to disclose what you did.
Eric
I’ve been using this new Photoshop feature as well—so far, exclusively for vintage black-and-white family photographs. My experience is similar to yours: it’s remarkable how well the colorization works by default with a single click. I have discovered, however, that some tonal extremes—for example, highlights on a part of the subject’s skin that are separated from the other skin-colorized areas and are just shy of being blown—seem to confuse the colorization algorithm, which leaves them in monochrome even if those areas logically should be filled with the chosen skin color. Presumably this will be corrected as Adobe augments its neural network training set.
As for the ethics: no problem. I doubt my living relatives would even notice the difference. And as for the others. . . .
definitely - do it Kirk
show sounds good, maybe a printed catalogue would be nice too (perhaps depends on the gallery too, what kind it is).
Since I prefer B&W to color I see no reason to convert a perfectly good image to color. But, experimenting for your own enjoyment is entirely up to you. And you are very transparent about what you are doing!
Maybe those three people in the corner were sending you a message?
I like this work far better than the skyscrapers and mannequins. But I do prefer the original, B&W versions. Maybe, in your exhibit, show large prints of the B&W, accompanied by smaller prints in the colorized versions.
Note: That is just a thought, not a suggestion. I don't make suggestions to your any more. 8O)
As to the ethics, so long as you disclose what you did I see no problem. And in some cases I'm not sure disclosure is required. If the image is presented as documentary, journalism, or history than yes, state opening any modifications. But if it is more interpretive or art then no need. At least that's my opinion.
You moved me to try the Colorize for myself. The only things I had handy were from a portrait session a few weeks ago which was shot in color but finished as B&W JPEGs. Photos were a young woman in a black dress on a black background. On the head-and-shoulders photos the filter worked great. Skin tones and lipstick were a very close match to the original color versions. However on a 3/4 length shot the filter insisted on making her black dress red and turned her black hair brown. For a viewer who had not seen the original it might have passed, but never for anyone who had seen the true color.
Which brings me back to historic photos -- how would we know if the colors are accurate, or even close. Who knows what color shirt that guy was wearing in 1897, or whenever?
You convert color to black and white so why not the other way round. I can’t see the difference. In the old days you had to choose b&w or color film. Now you don’t. You can just shoot in color Raw and then choose. Go for it and have fun.
Colouring photos is an old habit: I have glass plate photos of New York from my grandfather which were also coloured by hand later. Now it is only one click :-)
I don't see any ethics problem with the way you outlined this. I do think your work is stronger in the original form. When I look at your original images I see your ability to present light and tones. When I look at the colored version I see the work of some software guy in Silicon Valley.
Colorized photos, so far, have some kind of *thing* about them that seems artificial, even when skillfully done. I think it will get better when photographers are given a pallette to choose from. (And perhaps Photoshop offers that, just not in the one-click; I just don't know because I don't do this.) When I look at this photo, I see lips before I see eyes, which seems off. I remember the other times you've put up this photo, and it seemed more like the woman was very clearly gazing at you, and the lips were definitely secondary.
It's always your choice when doing personal work…here, I agree with JC. For me that "thing" is that color distracts and drains the life from them. I've seen these portraits before, and enjoyed them for the tones and crafting. I can't imagine watching Casablanca in color, either.
This shot is one my favorite portraits and therefore should definitely be included in your gallery show... in B&W ! ;-)
When I view this image in B&W I find myself interested in knowing more about this young woman. Is she a student, a newlywed? When I view the color version, I question her choice of lipstick color, or her wearing lipstick at all.
All of this colorizing reminds me of when Ted Turner purchased the MGM film library in the 1980’s and colorized many of the B&W films. He was called before Congress for a major investigation. When asked what gave home the right to colorize the classic films, Turner replied “The last time I checked, Senator, I owned those films.” It’s stuck in my mind for a while.
I didn't mean to start anything. I just thought you guys might want to stay informed about new capabilities. The photos still exist in black and white.
"I didn't mean to start anything. I just thought you guys might want to stay informed about new capabilities. "
I didn't mean to start anything either! And seriously, I appreciate the information. I hadn't realized that the process had advanced this far. Thank you.
I think in some odd way the neural network’s color choices are modern ones, based upon internet images rather than color prints on paper. Her facial colorations ramp up the image’s impact, much like cell phone default settings.
Post a Comment