Discussion in 'Critique Forum Archives' started by mysteryscribe, May 20, 2007.
I think I hate colorizing more than just selective color.
Well I didn't think this or these type shots you have of this kind of era would work in color.....
but I find myself liking this/ nice composition on this one by the way... just get the two in background , far left out of there lol,,, put Dr. Clone on em!
Why there is more than one horse in the race I 'spect.... But I can understand that. Didn't care much for the colorized version of Cassablanca Bogart with jaundice didn't do it for me either.
Let me ask this very curiously: back in the film-only times, when they could only take black and white photos but some got this soft colouring ... how was it done?
Was it applied to the negative or to each and every print afterwards, and was it done with special pencils or special colours?
I could actually ask my Australian friend, she's a pro-photog and back in time hand-colouring was her speciality (a much admired-by-me craft she did those 25-20 years ago), but I now want to ask YOU ,all of you here who might know.
And how on earth was b&w (movie) FILM coloured AFTERWARDS? For I understand from this thread that it was done, too!!! :shock:
Is this particular one a computer-coloured photo?
What is the original and how was it digitalised, for I understand you don't really "do digital", is that right, Charly?
this is a digital tint and digital air brush, but it is nothing I haven't done by hand. Old black and white prints in the forties were colored with oils by hand. I have done some of that as well.
They were often done as a craft by women in the early 1900s in about everything. Some were in water color and oil. Probably crayons as well.
The movie thins is all digital and was so early on taht they just loaded the film and gave a shade of gray a color and just changed everything awfully phony looking but it was a novelty.
A previous signature of mine read "I said I got no use for photoshoppe but I never said I couldn't use it."
Digital air brush ... oh yes :idea: --- my ancient PS 6.0 has something like that somewhere, too! My daughter sometimes takes her approaches into learning all about Photoshop by using all those funny tools, and believe me: she thus learns faster and in a much more playful manner than I do --- but the "beauty" of the outcome is always debateable, of course, but that is the case with beauty, anyway!
When you have old eyes you have to forget working with real paint or get one helluva magnifying glass.
You might be right ... she's doing her drawings and paintings (which she does, too) with the eyes of a young 14-year-old --- and somehow the same also applies to the eyes that take that playful approach to PS editions --- yes, but as time goes by ........................
Way before the selective coloring 'issue', the composition is really wierd. What's about all the lines emanating from his head?
ah you mean the flag. As Hilary said about everest... It was just there I guess. I must have overlooked it. But I'm not sure its the same as a light post but you could be right. Frankly it didn't bother me much since I didn't even notice it. Thanks though I will take a better look.
Actually, way more than the flag. The edges of the tent, the tent post. It almost makes it look like the subject is his ear. And it all draws in to the center of the shot.
This and a couple others you have sprinkled around from the shoot that day look like you are taking basic composition for granted.
Separate names with a comma.