E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Photo: Dorothea Lange | Colorization: Sanna Dullaway
The photograph that has become known as "Migrant Mother" was a 32-year-old mother of seven children photographed in February of 1936 by Dorothea Lange.
Photo: Alfred Eisenstaedt | Colorization: Sanna Dullaway
LIFE's Alfred Eisenstaedt captured this scene amid the joyous chaos of August 14, 1945, his "V-J Day in Times Square" has become one of the most famous photographs ever made.
When Swedish artist Sanna Dullaway colorized a series of historical works from the likes of Eddie Adams and Dorothea Lange her intent was not to re-create history or take credit for adding a new twist to these historical images. All Dullaway wanted to do when she posted a link on Reddit was to show off her talents as an artist.
Photo: Eddie Adams | Colorization: Sanna Dullaway
Vietcong Execution in Saigon in 1968 was one of the most iconic images of the Viet Nam war.
“I only wanted to show everyone a new perspective of the past black & white world.” She wrote in an email. “The sun shone on our grandparents too.”
"I felt the famous photographs would best reach and touch everyone who saw them," Dullaway continued.
When the colorized images went viral, with websites like Gizmodo writing about her works, she realized the impact of what she did. “I never claimed them being my own work nor did I want to ‘improve’ or ‘replace’ them as some people might want to think.”
When Dullaway realized that she might have infringed on copyrights, she immediately informed imgur to take down the offending material and apologized for her actions on her deviantart.com website. She added this to her status, “Please note I do not take credit for the iconic photos I colourized,” she wrote. “Focus on the photos, not me.”
Needless to say her images are out there and alive on the internet, and as I look at the manipulations, I have to wonder how many times can history be re-written and when does a piece of art ever stop being modified?
Gizmodo blogger Jesus Diaz wrote today that these colored famous photos are so much more powerful than their black and white originals, but I have to disagree. Eddie Adams' photo of the execution captured on the streets of Saigon is more powerful, because it is real. That black and white photo raised the global conscience about the conflict in Vietnam, and helped bring an end to the war. Color or not, it’s one of the most important photos of the 20th century.
I understand that these images were done not to modify history and should only be taken as entertainment. It’s not the first time that works of art have been digitally altered and it’s definitely not the first time black and white classics have made the leap to color. I remember the first time I saw Ted Turner's colorization of Casablanca. It looked unnatural and like many others I preferred the black and white original. However, on a completely different tune, when DJ Dangermouse mashed the Beatles White Album and Jay-Z's Black Album to create the Grey Album, I had to commend the creativity. But that's art of a different color.
Ultimately for Dullaway, her experiment got the job done. People are talking about her new colorization business, around the globe, and in this day and age, that’s more than half the battle for an artist. The ability to self-promote is important and she should enjoy the buzz while it lasts, because after it’s over, an artist needs to stand on their own talents and not gimmicks.
Related links:
- View Sanna Dullaway's flickr stream
- Check out Sanna on deviantart.com
- See other images from her colorization project
- Read more about the 'Migrant Mother' photo
- Read more about the Eddie Adams image
What do you think? Discuss this post in the comments section or hit me on Twitter @sweeneyjon.
Editor's note: I though it would be worth mentioning that this blog post was modified from its original. Dullaway posted a link to her creations on Reddit, and not a personal blog.
Leave a Comment:
In my own opinion and picture that is NOT of your work should be left as the photographer (artist) took it. Mess with your own pictures...these are not yours to mess with. They tell a story of a time, a place, an action that we as people were a part of. The picture should stay as is out of respect for the events involved.
I couldn't agree with you more. These were pieces of History that in my opinion have been vandalized.
The Migrant Mother is my grandmother Florence Leona Thompson....The picture should be kept in its original black and white...........she is my hero...and a symbol of american motherhood
We will never get away from digitizing images. I think it's cool to bring old photos back to life, but on the other hand it can be taken too far and distort the truth and change perceptions. www.AmonMedinger.com
Why not ask Ted Turner? You do get that nothing much is new new redone, I have zero issue with it.
What about what the artists themselves have to say about it? A couple decades ago when the idea of colorizing black-&-white motion pictures was `hot', Orson Wells said it best (about preserving "Citizen Kane" in its original dense blacks, and shimmering whites): "Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."
The colorization craze has evidently returned (societies have short memories for the devastating effects of bad ideas...witness the resurgence of cocaine in the `80's - and the Cult of Reagan today). My question at the time; would you idiots also colorize the B-&-W beginning- and ending of MGM's "The Wizard of Oz."?
Perhaps colorization can make an image `more-accessible' to a particular audience...but if it robs the images of the artist's intended message, what's the point?
I have to say I'm a bit torn. On one hand, I believe the original photos should be preserved as they are because that's very much why they were iconic. Color film was more pricey at the time and most newspapers never put color photos in at the time so it was just good business to buy the less expensive films. Some use B&W to make it more intense, as shown by Hitchcock and Wells, even though color, by that time, was easier to come by.
On the other hand, the colorization processes of today are as different from the ones when Turner was trying to colorize a black and white world as black and white is from color! The difference in these few photos is amazing and does not look fake at all! She does very good work and if I was of a mind to have something done, I'd definitely go to her!
Lastly, B&W bits of "The Wizard of Oz" WERE colorized. When I originally heard that Turner wanted to colorize them, I was horrified. MGM said the whole idea behind the two different films is to show how much more beautiful Oz was than Kansas, but she still preferred home. However, I noticed the last time I watched it on TV that they had actually been colorized. I remember distinctly when we were kids watching it on the annual CBS run that you could tell exactly where the camera went from B&W to color (just as Dorothy is approaching the door to open it) because it went from stark black and white to a sort of sepia. Now, they have made the whole of both segments in the muted sepia so that it blends better. Except for the fact that I remember exactly where the change is (the last camera angle change before opening the door) you can't tell the difference in the film. If they were going to colorize it, that was the best way to go!
While some of us grew up with B&W photos and movies, most people under 45 have always lived with color. For them, the monochrome world we know is very foreign to them and they cannot easily associate with it. Colorization, if done well (as this is), can help bring the past to life for post-color generations. As with movies, do you honestly think (most of) the B&W artists would have stayed monochromatic if lifelike color was available? Sure, even today, 1 photo, 1 film out of a thousand is done in B&W for artistic reasons (usually to evoke that very otherness that brings a sense of unreality); the rest are done in the best medium available. If B&W was so wonderful, why didn't Rembrandt and Michelangelo produce their works in monochrome? They certainly knew how - they all did pencil sketches - but chose to paint in colors.
Very well put Ned.
I'm sorry. I meant eclectos1. I absolutely agree.
Isn't re-seeing things in a slightly different way what artists do?
But you're right. This is the information age, after all, and since kids literally have access to all kinds of historical information, (some of which is true), should they be interested enough to look it up themselves, they could teach themselves history and realize how this affects them. These particular images would probably connect to them, should they be paying attention to current events, and we just can't let them put themselves in that position. The only way to stop them is by keeping them from being interested. So, let's keep our commercials and ads and fiction all in vivid bright colors with the best current technology has to offer, and current language, and keep our history in black and white, preferably with old fashioned language too, so they can make as few connections as possible. After all, this is how we communicate to our children what is important.
Sure, we might -say- that dusty old vase in the corner over there is the most important, but if it were, wouldn't we dust it off from time to time?
These old photos are pieces of history, never have they been dead to bring back to life! I am 35 part of the color era but i find old b&w photos to be beautiful and artistic not dead! I often use b&w now to bring emotion to a photo where color take emphasis off of the reason for the photo! As nice as the photos are in color they loose a sense of why they were taken when converted! Not everything is broken and needs fixing somthings are perfect just as they are!
I see nothing wrong with it. i love to see black and white pics colorized. It gives them new life and a new prospective. I love how they turned out!
I see nothing wrong with it. i love to see black and white pics colorized. It gives them new life and a new prospective. I love how they turned out!
I agree. It's not as if the originals were being destroyed. They remain as they have always been. From the way some people speak, you'd think the originals were being destroyed or changed themselves in the process as opposed to the truth of the matter, that these are simply copies with color.
Someone should colorize that annoying 15 minutes of B&W at the beginning (and 2 at the end) of The Wizard of Oz. And Schindler's List, while we're talking about it. And I'm still waiting for the bloopers reel.
No way!
Part of the charm of The Wizard of Oz is when it changes from black and white to color as Dorothy steps out of the house.
I say leave it alone.
I've been a photographer for nearly a Decade now. Considered professional for 7years & I'd flip in my grave if able to have the realization that someone had tampered with my work. Any time I see someone has taken one of my Images and "recreated or improved" it I get frustrated and immediately have them return it back to it's original state. If I wanted it to look that way then I simply would have made it that way in the first place! I see what was trying to be accomplished, but she should stick with her friends and families old photos; if they want them to loose the importance they once held. The beauty of the era & the initial emotion and memory it held is lost.
My Grandmother showed me "Migrant Mother" by the amazingly talented Dorothea Lange when I was just 6 or 7 and it brought tears to my eyes. How dare this person think that she could improve upon a moment captured in history. You've soiled exactly what all these talented people set out to do! I'm ashamed of what this, whatever she claims to be, has done to these timeless classic portraits of an era and what they represent. The digital age is ruining the beauty and art that this field once held in years past.
None of them were taken by her and since many of these fine artists have been gone for many years I sincerely doubt she has written consent to change or alter them in any way.
Simply put these photographs are in no way that person's to "improve."
This disgusts me.
She never said she was trying to improve them. It was an attempt to demonstrate her skill, nothing more. Nothing was destroyed, no one was injured. If you don't like them, don't look.
When the artists themselves weighed-in a couple decades ago on the issue of colorizing black-&-white motion pictures, Orson Wells said it best (about preserving "Citizen Kane" in its original dense blacks and shimmering whites): "Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."
The colorization craze has evidently returned (societies have short memories for the devastating effects of bad ideas...witness the resurgence of cocaine in the `80's - and the Cult of Reagan today). My question at the time; would you idiots also colorize the B-&-W beginning- and ending of MGM's "The Wizard of Oz."?
Perhaps colorization can make an image `more-accessible' to a particular audience...but if it robs the images of the artist's intended meaning, what's the point?
For many, a B&W photo will offer far, far more emotions to the image, simply because it doesn't have to compete with color. In B&W, we see, and we sense the emotion of the moment, whereas..... where there's colour showing, we might linger for a moment on the dominant color, or some hue that might not seem appropriate, or whatever....... and miss the full meaning of the image..... the passion that was there in plain sight. In sum, colour becomes a distraction, rather than an enhancement. OTOH, if the subject matter is less focused on a particular subject, than I suppose..... colour, or not, makes little difference. When "art" comes into play.....it's all rather subjective. I do agree, though.... that from my point of view, it's really up to the original artist to determine how his/her work should be displayed. If they've "passed", well........ leave it in it's original content.
I Ribbit you this:
In my humble Phrog opinion, I feel B&W is more appropriate for these images, because of their idiomatic locution. B&W just feel "right" for earlier captures, due to the way the main characters are focused upon by this viewer. I personally feel distracted by the backgrounds in the colorized versions. B&W has a grain which adds texture and sharp contrasts that pull these images together, color diminishes the effect.
It can't all be a magical mystery tour thing in technicolor rainbow.
Ribbit, out.
I once read in a book that Black and White (picture/films ext.) showed the truth of the moment. That black and white filtered out all the extra and pulled the true emotion out of what is shown. I wholeheartedly believe this. These pictures would not have been as beautiful, touching, or horrifying if they had been presented to us in color. They show true emotion, blocking out all the extras in the shot and focusing on a single moment or feeling. The photographer wants us to feel or experience something specific.
Someone said that most people under the age of 45 probably don't relate to black and white because everything in our lives has been produced in color. Well I'm 19 and I would rather hang black and white photographs then color. They connect more to my soul.
While the black-and-white originals should be forever preserved, I do not see an issue of it being presented in color. The world is full of colors, people, places and things are not just black and white. Colors make things look real and there is a better appreciation of what things really look like.
As a photographer, I find Miss Dullaway's work interesting, but am offended that she used someone else's intellectual property to "get a buzz going" for her business. She evidently had no authorization from the original photographers' estates to use the photos in any way, no matter what her intent.
I have always loved Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' picture. As a mother myself, its always struck a chord with me. Seeing it in color was fascinating. I found that instead of just focusing on the mother, my eyes were drawn to the sun bleached highlights in the hair of her two children leaning on her shoulders. I thought about their situation more from their perspective. The picture in color may not be conveying Ms. Lange's original intent, but I find it still has equivalent power.
"V-J Day in Times Square" is a little different in my mind, but only because of how I feel about the original. In the original, I thought there was too much focus on the couple. I feel the colored version picks out the detail of the joy of all the people on that day, something I felt should have been reflected originally.
These are, of course, only my opinions. :)
The link on the poll stated that some like the modernization while others argued. Well, sorry MSN, but very few like modernization and pretty much everyone else wishes for them to be left alone. So cast that vote instead.
" to show off her talents as an artist." ..."an artist needs to stand on their own talents and not gimmicks." These two statements in the article sum it up perfectly. If I get a paint by numbers of the Mona Lisa, and finish it correctly, does that make me an artist. Maybe in my eyes, but not in the eyes of many others. What Sanna Dullaway did was fill in the photos with color. Does that make her an artist? To some yes, to most no. Hopefully she will enjoy her 15 minutes of fame. Personally having been a photographer for 30 years or so, Photography is all about perspective, not about color or b/w. I don't really think the colorization makes these photos any better. Ms. Dullaway has used a gimmick to proclaim herself an artist, if she has any talent, only time will tell.
Lighten up, folks. She didn't damage anyone, didn't burn the originals, didn't say hers were better. She also had the priciples to have them removed as soon as she realized she had upset people. Oh, and colorizing is an art form. Just look at all the bad examples that occurred before. Crayons indeed.
I think it alters the intent of the original photographer...leave them alone....tough those colorizations were well done, I still think it should NOT have been done
Some things are better just left alone.
I do not think that these colorized images degrade the original image. The black and white images are still readily available. I think of it like archaeologist coloring an image of an Egyptian statue that once had paint on it. The original moment in time was in color.
As a history buff, I am used to seeing black and white imagery, but colorizing these iconic images reminds us they took place in the real world, where color was and is the reality. just for the record, I find the color images just as powerful as the B&W.
I completely agree. From a teaching standpoint, kids can relate to the colored photographs easier and they make history more 'real'. We don't live in a black and white world. Depending on the application, the photos should be able to be colorized. It in no way takes away from the originals.
personally i like the black and white imagery from back when..im not opposed to color in anyway but i think they should leave it up to the photographer. Alfred Eisenstaedt's picture above it my favorite picture and i love the black and white,to me its more romantic!!
MSN by far asks the most idiotic, brainless questions I have ever seen. Instead of asking something that is actually relevant, this is what we get. Who are these people. Their world must be the size of a pea.
I agree with you, kay.
But the problem is that the media has to constantly find something to air 24/7 in our information society, and thus they have to come up with some of this crap to fill "air time".