http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Incre...otography-of-Prokudin-Gorsky.797569

They're pretty good.

Checking this out.

This shit is cool.

fucking love it!

awesome.

here's some awesome old world war 1 photos from the french as well:

http://www.worldwaronecolorphotos.com/

wanted to know if I could use one as some sort of album art but not sure if that'd be good haha

that is one of the coolest things i've ever seen.

those are nice.

saw these awhile ago, totally amazing. most pics i've seen from that era are pretty grainy b/w, these blow them all away. the color makes you feel like you're really there as opposed to looking at some far away time in the past.

i just assumed that reality pre-WWII was just black and white.

if you look these ARE black and white.

love the fat russian dude sitting in the chair.
the WWI photos in the link posted are true color. pretty cool to see a biplane in color.

[Jun 22,2009 10:39am - the_reverend]
if you look these ARE black and white.

-can you explain please? They look color to me.

These are incredible. It's amazing to see that period of time in color.

also the photos are pretty amazing considering for such old photos people had to sit in the same position for awhile and make the same face, or risk blurring. what a pain in the ass that must have been, but a small price to pay for immortalizing yourself in a photo back then, I suppose.

man... kids... why not read the article?



"The process used involved a camera that would take a set of three photographs. These pictures would be monochrome but each picture would be taken using a filter of a different color. When all three monochrome pictures were projected (using light which had to be specifically colored) then the original color scene could be reconstructed. However, this took some time to take - hardly the point and click we are used to a century on - and so occasionally in Prokudin-Gorsky's work you can see stray movements, such as the child in the bottom left of the previous picture."

man... rev.. cause i have no interest in the art of photography, I appreciate looking at pictures, but not about reading about the process.

I think we got that part, but it just comes down to semantics if you want to claim that that color pics are BW based on their source format.

That's like saying my 256 color GIF is really a 16.7k color image because the source was a JPEG. Besides, he actually did the work back then to convert them to color, not just took the pics in BW and then had them reconstructed a century later with modern techniques.

oooooo

Ian: my post was @ jim's "please explain" so I explained. These images were shot in black and white. Also, that analogy is false. you are comparing something that has less with something that has more. The correct analogy would be if you had 3 256 gifs each with 0x00-0xFF. you can claim that you have a 65K image if you shifted and or'd them together.
(256gif1 << 2^2) | (256gif2 << 2^1) | (256gif3 << 2^0). That is exactly what is going on here.

oh and my 65K above is really 16.7 million (0xFFFFFF) not 65K (0xffff)

Right!! That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy.

You mean the lawyer?

Right.

My point wasn't regarding the amount of color contained in the image, it was just about the semantics of the source format. Bad analogy maybe, but come on, it's Monday morning!

Also, color photography is bro.

you both raised and lowered your nerd points at the same time.
what's next.

haha, love that^

Oh, I am, am I? Is that what you think? Well if that's what you think, I have something to tell you. Something which may shock and discredit you. And that thing is as follows.

I'm not wearing a tie at all.