100 year old color photographs from Russia
 

They look like they were taken yesterday.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/214585

:thumbsup:

WOW! They do look like it was taken yesterday but #14 looks Photoshop. :lol

Wow, those photo's look pretty good for 100 years! Thanks for the link Senna! EXIF? haha..

did anyone see the WWI color photos? i saw them many years ago.. wish i could find them again

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

Awesome site about these photo's that tells you everything about them, including how they were produced when color photography wasn't around yet. Great read, and interesting site.

WW1 photo's in color?

http://www.worldwaronecolorphotos.com/

Here you go. Really awesome stuff!

Are these really real?!

Err.... the Lumiere Brothers invented colour photography in 1903, and started selling it commercially in 1907. <---- if I recall my history correctly.

Doesn't the fact that the photographs were projected in colour mean that colour photography existed??

What makes you think they're not?

i call bs... they look too good.

WTF? LMAO, you're calling BS because they look too good? They were shot on 8x10 film, not a tiny little 35mm DSLR sensor. That's why they look good...and because of some digital wizardry.

Another professional speaking his mind.

More info on top of Senna's :)

"Although color photography was around prior to 1903, the Lumière brothers, Auguste and Louis, patented the process in 1903 and developed the first color film in 1907. The French army was the primary source of color photos during the course of World War One."

http://www.worldwaronecolorphotos.co...ww_i_h_30.html

They've been digitally restored. Thats why.

What i find fascinating is that they breed realism into a period of time that is hard to grasp. The WW1 pictures for example make it seem much more real.

They just seemed too clear. I guess they touched them up a bit.

Lol, what? Why can't 100 year old photographs be clear? If you look at Daguerrotypes from the 1870's and onwards, you'll be amazed at how sharp they could be. The main difference is that prior to the early 1900's, film was orthochromatic, which means that it wasn't sensitive towards red light, only to blue, green and UV light. This made people in portraits look gaunt.

Thanks for clearing that up Senna. :) I saw that after i wrote my post.

These pictures could be amazing. Too bad the resolution they use has made them pretty much a goofy "oh look at that" website attraction.

^^^ thnx for the site, and yeah i was hoping for some high resolution shots but even the main website doesn't offer that :/

the pictures are a bit bigger than on the newsweek page http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ and theres more than 28 shots

you guys should find this particular page of interest http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html tells u how they took the glass negative and digitized/colourized it

These look amazing! Definitely a different feel than if they were in traditional black and white.

those people must be standing very still for him to take 3 photographs with different filters. I'm not very familiar with old cameras but I don't think u can just snap snap snap like todays i don't think.

damn smart guy.

Very cool! I didn't realize that the photo of Tolstoy that I've seen before was from that guy, or that early in the age of colour photography even.