ChatterBank0 min ago
History In Colour
16 Answers
Some stunning and iconic images here:
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I looked it up, and here, in more detail, is a description of what happened.
"Karsh asked Churchill to remove the cigar in his mouth, but Churchill refused. Karsh walked up to Churchill supposedly to get a light level and casually pulled the signature cigar from the lips of Churchill and walked back toward his camera. As he walked he clicked his camera remote, capturing the ‘determined’ look on Churchill’s face, which was in fact a reflection of his indignantcy. Karsh recounted: “I stepped toward him and without premeditation, but ever so respectfully, I said, ‘Forgive me, Sir’ and plucked the cigar out of his mouth. By the time I got back to my camera, he looked so belligerent he could have devoured me. It was at that instant I took the photograph. The silence was deafening. Then Mr Churchill, smiling benignly, said, ‘You may take another one.’ He walked toward me, shook my hand and said, ‘You can even make a roaring lion stand still to be photographed.'”
"Karsh asked Churchill to remove the cigar in his mouth, but Churchill refused. Karsh walked up to Churchill supposedly to get a light level and casually pulled the signature cigar from the lips of Churchill and walked back toward his camera. As he walked he clicked his camera remote, capturing the ‘determined’ look on Churchill’s face, which was in fact a reflection of his indignantcy. Karsh recounted: “I stepped toward him and without premeditation, but ever so respectfully, I said, ‘Forgive me, Sir’ and plucked the cigar out of his mouth. By the time I got back to my camera, he looked so belligerent he could have devoured me. It was at that instant I took the photograph. The silence was deafening. Then Mr Churchill, smiling benignly, said, ‘You may take another one.’ He walked toward me, shook my hand and said, ‘You can even make a roaring lion stand still to be photographed.'”
The notion that any photograph is 'the truth' is a delusion. Any colour photograph is only an impression/approximation of reality because it is synthesised through the chemicals and processes used to develop and print them.
For example the colorized picture here of Liz Taylor is beautiful (wow!), whereas many of the contemporary colour images of her are garish and unnatural. And the b&w original of this would also have been unnatural and failing to convey an important dimension of the reality - the colours.
Pictures in b&w do add a level of estrangement between the image and the viewer because the world has never looked that way and the brain expects to see colours.
When my kids were very small they used to refer to the past as 'the black and white days' i think they thought the world really looked like that based on the limitations of old b&w images and movies.
we know from numerous tests that people engage more with colour than b&w and these colorizations reinforce that; i was particularly taken with the portraits of Chaplin and Churchill.
For example the colorized picture here of Liz Taylor is beautiful (wow!), whereas many of the contemporary colour images of her are garish and unnatural. And the b&w original of this would also have been unnatural and failing to convey an important dimension of the reality - the colours.
Pictures in b&w do add a level of estrangement between the image and the viewer because the world has never looked that way and the brain expects to see colours.
When my kids were very small they used to refer to the past as 'the black and white days' i think they thought the world really looked like that based on the limitations of old b&w images and movies.
we know from numerous tests that people engage more with colour than b&w and these colorizations reinforce that; i was particularly taken with the portraits of Chaplin and Churchill.
not exactly, Zeuhl. When I take a photo I can check immediately whether the colour's right. It may not be perfect but it will be best-possible. I don't think you can say the same of a monochrome photo coloured in years later by someone who wasn't there, or even alive, at the time. That's just a guess. Who knows what colour Lincoln's jacket really was? People may engage with him better if they like him in blue - but if it was really brown, they're engaging with a chimera.
/Who knows what colour Lincoln's jacket really was?/
It is possible to research these things; journals, diaries, tailor's bills etc
/People may engage with him better if they like him in blue - but if it was really brown, they're engaging with a chimera./
I take your point jno; you're right
my point was that, though not perfect, colorizing does add an important element that the monochrome lacks (to its detriment) and could be more accurate than colour photographs of the time
It is possible to research these things; journals, diaries, tailor's bills etc
/People may engage with him better if they like him in blue - but if it was really brown, they're engaging with a chimera./
I take your point jno; you're right
my point was that, though not perfect, colorizing does add an important element that the monochrome lacks (to its detriment) and could be more accurate than colour photographs of the time
1 to 16 of 16
