Photos taken 100 years ago in COLOR

[Bram]

My opinion goes somethign like this. I personally find it hard to believe that in 1910 photos were taken in color. If it was at all possible in that time to get color images, now were talking 1910, imagine 30 years after that time with progressions going as they were. During world war II 95+% of the photos were in black and white, please correct me if i'm wrong. I just think with the advancements in that field they should have been able to create the color photos during WWII. which they did not. IMO they should have been able to do that. Now i'm not saying these color photos are not what they are if you read my posts carefully I find it really hard to believe. I am well aware that just because somethign is hard to believe doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[PenguinPhotoWrx]

Actually, a very large percentage of WWII photos and film were in color. They were converted to B&W later because the quality was better and probably a host of other reasons that are now lost to the history buffs. (Newspapers and movie houses were all B&W anyway.)

If you look at the process that he used in 1910- he did not really take color photographs. He took three separate B&W images through 3 separate color filters- with a camera that did this in quick succession. The images were then colored separately and registered (aligned) later, thus producing the color image.

I believe that's how a lot of NASA satellites work when taking pictures of Mars and other celestial bodies- they take B&W through various filters, and combine them later. It gives them more latitude, I imagine, because they can easily make filters for anything they want. Making image sensors for the same stuff is probably hard (infrared, X-rays, etc.).

 

[Bram]

Well then PenguinPhotoWrx, you just made some very valid points there.

 

[PenguinPhotoWrx]

Spoken like a true gentelman!

When you realize what is truly there, it's really amazing. This guy was a pioneer in the process of color photography. If you think about it, advanced films later on were just three layers that all responded to an individual color (obviously, we all know that)- he just had the 'manual transmission' version!

 

[Bram]

Aaaah I see now. It all makes sense actually. I guess if you do use the main three color and three different shots and then combine the three. You would end up with a colored photo.

 

[Garbz]

*facepalm* Every single link in this thread explained the process. Even wikipedia. Could you at least read the link next time please before attacking the site XD

 

[fezephoto]

These are so interesting, thanks for posting them

 

[Josh66]

Actually, a very large percentage of WWII photos and film were in color. They were converted to B&W later because the quality was better and probably a host of other reasons that are now lost to the history buffs. (Newspapers and movie houses were all B&W anyway.)

I don't think it was necessarily because it was better quality, I think they just didn't want to show all of the bloodshed. B&W was a way of making it less horrific to some extent.

 

[videochicke]

Wow. Just wow!

 

[rock3ralex]

very interesting, great find!

 

[Bram]

*facepalm* Every single link in this thread explained the process. Even wikipedia. Could you at least read the link next time please before attacking the site XD

My goodness Harbz strike again. I know it was explained it was my personal OPINION , you would have known this if you would have read the previous threads. Oh, wait it's Garbz, he would never think of something like that. I read it all yes it's wonderful I myself found it hard to believe. Like I stated earlier it was my personal OPINION.