Amazing color photos from 1900's

Discussion in 'Photography' started by philo , Feb 2, 2013.

  1. philo 

    philo  Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. philo 

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Feb 2, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. philo 

    Robert Coe Guest

    : http://curiouseggs.com/extremely-rare-color-photography-of-early-1900s-paris/

    Very interesting. Almost all of the photographs have historical and/or
    artistic merit, and some would be technically acceptable even by today's
    standards. But I see that photographers of that era had just as much trouble
    with their horizontals and verticals as their modern counterparts do. (Maybe
    more, actually, since I'd have to assume that most of those were done with the
    use of a tripod.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 2, 2013
    #3
  4. Paul in Houston TX, Feb 3, 2013
    #4
  5. philo 

    Michael Guest

    Permit a degree of skepticism. Do we know that this is actually what it
    purports to be? If Autochrome had been this good, why would there have
    been Kodachrome 35 years later? Are these untouched? Or are they
    photoshopped with some attention to saturation and "vibrancy?" Forgive
    my doubts, but I have seen Autochromes before (admittedly long ago) and
    they never looked like this. Has anyone "Snoped" this website?
     
    Michael, Feb 3, 2013
    #5
  6. philo 

    philo  Guest



    Rather than having expressed skepticism all you would have do have done
    is a Google search to verify the authenticity of the process. I am sure
    that the color processes prior to Kodachrome were quite difficult .

    To the others who have also posted replies: The images are so good I
    cannot be surprised that there was at least one skeptic here.
     
    philo , Feb 3, 2013
    #6
  7. philo 

    Whiskers Guest

    Autochrome plates need a very strong light source to be seen at their best;
    ideally, something like an enlarger or projector - light-boxes don't show
    them well. Carbon-arc projectors were, I think, the preferred viewing
    method originally, which probably accounts for the scorched emulsions on
    some of the plates. But at their best, they can be very beautiful and
    'atmospheric'.

    Inevitably, any image on the internet or web has been digitised and
    processed. I don't think those in the linked page have been over-tweaked.
    Compare them with these, from the (English) National Portrait Gallery
    <http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/explore/glossary-of-art-terms1/autochrome.php>.

    Autochrome plates were very 'slow', and expensive. Even early Kodachrome
    film was fast enough for cine-photography, and is much easier to project.
    It's also capable of rendering much finer detail so you can get decent
    images from 'miniature' formats, such as 35mm film, whereas Autochrome is
    very much a 'large format' medium.

    Other successful early colour systems were Dufay and Vivex.
     
    Whiskers, Feb 3, 2013
    #7
  8. philo 

    GMAN Guest

    I wonder if these were from slides?


    If so, whoever scanned them to digital has never heard of Digital ICE?
     
    GMAN, Feb 3, 2013
    #8
  9. The colour is unlike any Autochromes I've seen in the past, so I think
    someone has "normalised" the colour, every autochrome I have seen had a
    distinct red/green bias with blues being very weak, with a tendency to
    violet. It's possible to improve the colour of them dramatically though
    with an image editor, but I think you'd need to up the saturation a lot and
    tweak the overall colour balance too to get the vivid pure blues in the
    pics on this website.

    Takes a look at the images on the sites linked to by the wikipedia
    article on autochromes, they look pretty different to the ones on the
    above blog.
     
    Gordon Freeman, Feb 4, 2013
    #9
  10. philo 

    Mark F Guest

    It seems to me that various types of plates (or perhaps film) were
    for the pictures. Some seem like they were taken in bright light and
    the subjects are static so the exposures could have been long. In
    general these pictures (on the site) have the "graininess" that the
    Wikipedia article says was present in at least the early plates.

    Other pictures were taken at night or have humans as subjects that
    didn't move. In general these pictures (on the site) have less
    graininess.

    There are a few pictures where some subjects moved at least their
    heads in what seems to be a brightly lit scene that seem to indicate
    long exposures since some people moved. About the 23rd picture
    (lamp post saying, I think, "PONT au DOUBLE") shows many people
    and the flags blurred, but a few (for example, the man in uniform
    on the left) unblurred. This picture shows some grain, but not
    as much as some and more than others. I can't tell if this
    is caused by media used or the decay of the images.


    I can't tell by the subjects when the various photographs were made,
    but I'm sure many people can.
     
    Mark F, Feb 4, 2013
    #10
  11. philo 

    Jim Boyd Guest

    http://www.paris1914.com/#!/2012/08/boulevard-exelmans.html

    Here is a link to the orignal autochrome
     
    Jim Boyd, Mar 16, 2013
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.