Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
Yeah black and white photos definitely set the correct mood when playing OOB.bru888 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:26 pm I never use color photos in my scenarios. Whenever I come across them, I suspect "colorization" which I absolutely abhor (includes movies). Yet apparently there was some genuine color photography during the war, such as this:
Rare color photos cast new light on World War II
Nevertheless, as the article says, "It still seems a bit odd to see color photography from the Second World War. It still has the power to shock." That's why I will turn a color photo into black and white (and even age it a bit if necessary) before I include it in my stuff.
Image0104.jpg
Image0104edited.jpg
The vast preponderance of photography in WW2 was in black and white, as far as I know, and the popup messages usually read like newspaper articles of the time. Color just jars the senses in that, instead of reading the newspaper, or a set of orders with a photo attached, etc., one is looking through a window with bare eyes like a time machine. If OOB was a first-person shooter game, maybe that would work. Thankfully, it's not.
That's an interesting viewpoint.terminator wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:22 am Black and white is a putting away. It’s a bit like being in a museum.
Coloring prevents putting away. Coloring allows people to tell themselves, we are told a story in which I can recognize myself. These people I see in the image could be me. It was yesterday and finally it could be today and so we have this identification and we are more interested in this story
Nevertheless, designer's preference and choice for historical verisimilitude: B&W.terminator wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:22 am Black and white is a putting away. It’s a bit like being in a museum.
Coloring prevents putting away. Coloring allows people to tell themselves, we are told a story in which I can recognize myself. These people I see in the image could be me. It was yesterday and finally it could be today and so we have this identification and we are more interested in this story
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rs-on.html
)Hmmm, colorization was quite popular at the time, and we have a colorized portrait of my Uncle who died on a B-17 bomber with the same "artificial" color as that of the sniper above. However I'm not sure how advanced they were with "airbrushing," as I thought this was an entirely modern technique (in fact it's a digitial photography term in general). I'm aware that "object removal" was in evidence during the deStalinization period (where people were removed from photos) but it's not all that sophisticated. Removing that smoke would entail quite a bit of precision work, wouldn't it? I don't really know -- I'm just curious as to whether they were that advanced in, say, 1945 or 1946.bru888 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:04 pm And here are the originals. (I'll stop doing this from now on, terminator. I don't want to be a nuisance.
Note the plural "originals." Apparently there are two black and white versions of this photo floating around. My guess is that some authority wanted a more attractive view, so they had the sky smoke airbrushed out and the image lightened. It's definitely the same photo; the unfurling flag and the angle of the soldier's arm are the same as are the positions of the people and vehicles in the street:
Good thought. No doubt some colorization of these photos was contemporaneous and other colorizations are more recent and involve modern technology. Those are definitely the same photo of Stalingrad; I'd bet my house on it.Boarspear wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:38 amHmmm, colorization was quite popular at the time, and we have a colorized portrait of my Uncle who died on a B-17 bomber with the same "artificial" color as that of the sniper above. However I'm not sure how advanced they were with "airbrushing," as I thought this was an entirely modern technique (in fact it's a digitial photography term in general). I'm aware that "object removal" was in evidence during the deStalinization period (where people were removed from photos) but it's not all that sophisticated. Removing that smoke would entail quite a bit of precision work, wouldn't it? I don't really know -- I'm just curious as to whether they were that advanced in, say, 1945 or 1946.bru888 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:04 pm And here are the originals. (I'll stop doing this from now on, terminator. I don't want to be a nuisance.
Note the plural "originals." Apparently there are two black and white versions of this photo floating around. My guess is that some authority wanted a more attractive view, so they had the sky smoke airbrushed out and the image lightened. It's definitely the same photo; the unfurling flag and the angle of the soldier's arm are the same as are the positions of the people and vehicles in the street:
I think that removing the smoke in that picture would be (relatively) easy, at least compared to removing, say, those trucks down on the street in that photo. You might notice in the “airbrushed” Picture, the sky is almost universally the same color. In the unedited picture, the sky varies in color quite a bit (though a lot of that is probably aging). It’d probably be pretty difficult to do, but I think it was probably more than possible. Granted, I know little of photography and the like, so what do I knowBoarspear wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:38 am I'm aware that "object removal" was in evidence during the deStalinization period (where people were removed from photos) but it's not all that sophisticated. Removing that smoke would entail quite a bit of precision work, wouldn't it? I don't really know -- I'm just curious as to whether they were that advanced in, say, 1945 or 1946.
