Colorized WWII photos

Photography. Read the facts. WW1 & 2 can’t be captured in black & white or colour.

 

So, you're saying that at least some of the b&w photos shot during WWII by photojournalists didn't capture its horror?!? Take a look at the attached.

 

LINK

Edited July 13, 2020 by William Michael

Photography.

 

Isn't this thread about photography?

Amazing ! I have the slightest idea how they do this , but I know when I was a kid my 1st and 2nd grade pictures were actually colored by the photographer. Once in a while the History Channel runs the documentary "WW II in Color". Imagine colorizing 2 hour worth of 16 mm film !

Can anyone identify the TLR camera in the fourth picture down?

 

The camera is an Argus Argoflex E. (Note in the image link posted in the Opening Post the camera and the people are reversed, horizontally.)

 

[LINK] to image of the CAMERA

 

It is a USA made TLR, probably one made during WWII. The Argus company closed down ‘consumer’ production when contracted the US Military.

 

The Argoflex E sported two Argus Varex 75mm f/4.5 lenses and a Wollensak Shutter.

 

***

 

The (original Black and White) portrait is commonly known amongst (some) Historians, especially those who have studied particular facets of WWII. I recognized the photo because of my association with and my work on behalf of a such student of WWII History. From her notes -

 

The Photograph features (then) 2nd Lt. Quentin C. Aanenson and (then) Miss Jacqueline Greer, later (Mrs) Jacqueline Aanenson. The photograph was made cica.1944, which was the year Quentin met Jacqueline.

 

Quentin C. Aanenson was a WWII fighter pilot. He attained rank of Captain (391st Fighter Squadron, 366th Fighter Group, 9th Air Force, United States Army Air Corps).

 

Aanenson wrote, directed and featured in "A Fighter Pilot's Story" (1993), a Feature Documentary Film chronicling aspects of WWII.

 

***

 

Quentin C. Aanenson: 21st April 1921 (Luverne Minnesota USA) ~ 28th December 2008 (Bethesda Maryland USA)

Jacqueline Aanenson (nee Greer): (18th February, 1923 Shreveport Louisiana USA ~ January 11th January 2018 in Washington District of Columbia USA)

 

WW

Thanks William.

You're welcome, I didn't do much, just looked up some files... but I got interested and did a bit of research myself, I found this on Jakob Lagerweij's Facebook page. LINK

 

The text corroborates part of the history notes which I posted.

 

The whole facebook page is interesting, for those who are interested in the photo colourization and also the history.

 

WW

You can be as "accurate" as you like, but it is still largely a hypothesis. I just don't see why colorization makes any difference whatever to understanding what these pictures mean. I basically see the whole process of colorizing black and white film a monumental waste of time. Yes, you may indeed be able to match the color of a downed Spitfire because you happen to be able to identify the squadron, but what about all the others when you have little idea of when they were taken, what time of day it was, how muddy was the uniform etc etc? They may look "right" but actually be entirely misleading. Yes, indeed, there were some color images taken in both world wars, so why do we need to see fake ones? I like the color images (autochromes) of the old Russian Empire that were recently publicized, but I see no purpose looking at colorized versions of the Russian Revolution originally taken in black and white, for example.

I just don't see why colorization makes any difference whatever to understanding what these pictures mean.

I agree to the extent the color versions don’t do much for me.

 

But, I think colorization is less about changing the meaning of the photos and more about changing their accessibility. For example, many of the kids (under 25?) I know, simply won’t watch old black and white movies or tv shows. And I believe it’s not because the stories themselves seem outdated but because the medium of black and white does. If this can provide young people access to the imagery of WWI and WWII, I say, go for it!

 

I doubt most people in this thread find a change in meaning when they look at the colorized photos. It’s a matter of the photos grabbing them a different way. Clearly, a lot of folks are impressed by the process and capability which makes the result exciting ... more of a technical achievement than an effect on meaning.

 

The accuracy factor, that the world back then was in color so seeing color photos is more closely representational, has a lot of problems, not least of which is the fact that the shots were made in black and white so claims to accuracy of content collide with claims of accuracy to photography itself.

 

Finally, historical re-enactment is a thing. So is keeping history alive. Shakespeare wrote historical plays. Spielberg made Schindler’s List. (Now imagine Schindler’s List in color!) People want to do things with history. That’s certainly better than forgetting it.

Edited July 13, 2020 by samstevens

Personally I wish Spielberg had shot SL in color throughout, that was my only complaint about the film that was otherwise excellent. I agree about black and white films to an extent, but I think the issue is largely whether people want to see documentaries or feature films. If they see the latter then they generally need to be in color for the widest audience, but many people just are not really interested in documentaries whether in color or black and white, so I think fiddling with the images does not make much difference.

Personally I wish Spielberg had shot SL in color throughout, that was my only complaint about the film that was otherwise excellent. I agree about black and white films to an extent, but I think the issue is largely whether people want to see documentaries or feature films. If they see the latter then they generally need to be in color for the widest audience, but many people just are not really interested in documentaries whether in color or black and white, so I think fiddling with the images does not make much difference.

Interesting points. Completely disagree about Schindler, but that’s what makes horse racing. As far as fiddling with these imageS not making a difference, it certainly seems to for many on this thread. I’m ok being in the minority on this while trying to understand why others see it differently.

Anyone tired of the usual chew toys connected with this topic should have a look at Errol Morris Believing is Seeing. His dissection of Roger Fenton's photo "Valley of the Shadow of Death" is engrossing. Learning to read photos is worth it.

Anyone tired of the usual chew toys connected with this topic should have a look at Errol Morris Believing is Seeing. His dissection of Roger Fenton's photo "Valley of the Shadow of Death" is engrossing. Learning to read photos is worth it.

Thanks for this recommendation. I just read a NY Times review just to get an idea about the book and will likely order it.

 

Some of the issues brought up in the book lead me to a distinction I think can be very important: the difference between accuracy and truth. While it can be accurate to take a straight photo of an empty road leaving the elephant just outside the frame, it may not have as much truth as a different photo taken to include the elephant. While staging some things may not be strictly “accurate,” staging (as great theater does) can tell deeper truths than what accuracy represents.

 

Photos can express as well as communicate and expressiveness often hits on a different kind of truth than subject.

 

For me, debates about photography and accuracy or photography and truth are less important than being open to seeing different sorts of things in different sorts of photos and being cued into the kind of truth that different kinds of photos may offer.

I guess the past months of "Mandatory Leisure," as my frau calls it, reconnected me with less canonical angles on taking and viewing images when time away from Zoom and emails permitted. The whole color "thing" here seemed just another border war between the sacred and profane that just wastes time and needlessly annoys. Have a look at Geoff Dyer's Ongoing Moment if it slipped by.

The whole color "thing" here seemed just another border war between the sacred and profane that just wastes time and needlessly annoys.

Unnecessarily condescending but otherwise some interesting thoughts. Thanks.

Unnecessarily condescending but otherwise some interesting thoughts. Thanks.

 

Really? Don't regard crankiness in some posts above as incisiveness. But then who really cares? It's just PN.

Unnecessarily condescending but otherwise some interesting thoughts. Thanks.

 

Par for the course for the poster you're quoting.

Par for the course for the poster you're quoting.

Perhaps, but more curious to know if you have thoughts on the colorized photos in question.

Perhaps, but more curious to know if you have thoughts on the colorized photos in question.

 

I am two generations removed from WWII, but had two grandfathers and heaps of uncles who did serve. Neither grandfather went overseas, but had one uncle KIA in France and another who made landfall on D-Day and actually appears in two reasonably circulated photos of the day.

 

The colorized photos may not be entirely accurate, but to me they do give a different take of what the brave men who were there actually saw and experienced. To me, the photos in the OP are a fascinating take. I don't think anything can replicate the experience of actually being on the front lines or of living through the era, further back and supporting those on the front lines, or back at home not knowing if your relatives would ever return(and the number of people who can claim to have experience either of those dwindles by the day). My mom's father had 8 brothers, and all but the youngest(who was a young teenager) served. 5 of them went overseas, and as I mentioned one didn't return(the rest trickled back stateside slowly after that).

 

So, yes, seeing colorized takes on photos I've grown up seeing does give a certain realism that I have never experienced, and I am glad to see them even if, as I said, they are an artist's take.

I am two generations removed from WWII, but had two grandfathers and heaps of uncles who did serve. Neither grandfather went overseas, but had one uncle KIA in France and another who made landfall on D-Day and actually appears in two reasonably circulated photos of the day.

 

The colorized photos may not be entirely accurate, but to me they do give a different take of what the

brave men who were there actually saw and experienced. To me, the photos in the OP are a fascinating take. I don't think anything can replicate the experience of actually being on the front lines or of living through the era, further back and supporting those on the front lines, or back at home not knowing if your relatives would ever return(and the number of people who can claim to have experience either of those dwindles by the day). My mom's father had 8 brothers, and all but the youngest(who was a young teenager) served. 5 of them went overseas, and as I mentioned one didn't return(the rest trickled back stateside slowly after that).

 

So, yes, seeing colorized takes on photos I've grown up seeing does give a certain realism that I have never experienced, and I am glad to see them even if, as I said, they are an artist's take.

Thanks. Great to hear your perspective.

the brave men

So true. My father fought in Germany. My brother and I did and still do think of him as a hero, though he denied that to his dying day, which came about 6 years ago. He maintained that he was just a dumb kid who did what he was told and had little real idea of what he was doing. There’s probably a lot of truth to that, too. When we closed up the house, we discovered a scrapbook of his with some pretty amazing (black and white) photos. A lot of his work was involved with cleaning up the camps just being discovered. He did not like talking about the war, which he rarely did. That’s understandable.

He did not like talking about the war, which he rarely did. That’s understandable.

 

Although I have no living family members who did serve in WWII, I was fortunate to grow up around several(including both by grandfathers, one of whom passed in '98 and one in '14) who did serve.

 

Out of all I knew, I never heard any actual "War Stories" from any of them, and of course never pressed for details.

 

The most my mother's father ever talked about was his train trip out to California, where "the train was so hot everyone was either stripped down to their underwear or completely naked" in anticipation of a deployment that never happened(that was around the time his older brother was KIA). One photo I have of him that I prize is him standing next to his car in his dress uniform, presumably before leaving.

 

I've heard tales of them sitting around late at night talking and sometimes drinking among themselves and trading war stories, but even my grandmother knew very little of what any of them actually did while in the service.

Anyway, maybe because I now have his pics and saw many others growing up, I can’t imagine seeing them or caring to see them in color, no matter how accurately it could be done. I do like the one color baby pic of myself, but that was a black and white garishly hand colored back at the time and I love it, unrealistically rosy cheeks and all! Is it accurate? No. But it’s true to and of its day. Most of my friends of the same age have one of themselves as well.

Anyway, maybe because I now have his pics and saw many others growing up, I can’t imagine seeing them or caring to see them in color, no matter how accurately it could be done. I do like the one color baby pic of myself, but that was a black and white garishly hand colored back at the time and I love it, unrealistically rosy cheeks and all! Is it accurate? No. But it’s true to and of its day. Most of my friends of the same age have one of themselves as well.

 

Sam, although I didn't grow up with my father, with the exception of a few years (long story)' I do have one photo of him while he was in the Navy during WWII. He was stationed so where in the Galapagos. When the photo was taken, he was on a beach with dressed in a bathing suit. Clearly he was quite fit.

For most infantry and tankers war was 99% wasting time waiting, cleaning, marching, drilling, eating, trying to sleep and 1% or less fighting. For many the former was 100% of course, and some actually did a lot of fighting and dying, but only for concentrated periods of time. Many memoirs of war relate the fundamental boredom of the infantryman/tank corps man's existence. My father was in the Royal Navy and he had a great war, or seemed to have. Drinking in the officer's club, polo, chatting up the local girls in India, Ceylon as was, and Egypt. No fighting as such, but he was minesweeping, in reality not something that was without danger. My aunt was in the suburbs of London during the blitz, and my mother in Australia was clearly petrified the Japanese were about to invade (as indeed they probably would have done). Although the Germans and Japanese brought it on themselves, it is hard to comprehend the trauma of the war that bombing and catastrophic defeat must have induced in them. We are very lucky today not to have had these experiences..

What I find interesting about The Valley of Death, is that there is nothing horrifying about it. It is simply a road with cannonballs on it. No bodies or horses or cannon, presumably because it was taken quite some time afterwards. Once we are told what it is then it becomes more interesting, but even so it is not really an arresting image at all. So it is truthful in a purely documentary sense, but tells us nothing much about the famous charge.

Although the Germans and Japanese brought it on themselves, it is hard to comprehend the trauma of the war that bombing and catastrophic defeat must have induced in them.

Something I have never and will never lose sleep over.

Many memoirs of war relate the fundamental boredom of the infantryman/tank corps man's existence.

I’m sure my dad experienced plenty of those times but I know what HE lost sleep over was the percentage of time he spent discovering and cleaning up those camps. Small percentages are sometimes irrelevant.

Edited July 15, 2020 by samstevens