Photo Interactive: The Civil War, Now in Living Color
How one author adds actual blues and grays to historic photographs
- By Ryan R. Reed
- Smithsonian.com, February 22, 2013
(Courtesy of Prints & Photographs, Library of Congress)
Why is there an absence of blood in the colorized photos? Is that something you chose to leave out?
If you look at the original photographs there is no indication of blood or it is very minimal. Obviously it’s a black-and-white photograph but even then, it would not be red. If there were a major blood stain, it would be a dark portion of a shirt of uniform. One of the photographs that was hand-colored early on shows a fair amount of blood. The fact is that on the black-and-white photo there is no indication of blood. During the period, hand-colorized photos were sort of an aesthetic. It was added on some of the period shots I guess for drama. I did not go out of the way to hide blood but there was just no indication.
What is the reaction you hope people have when looking at the colorized photos of the Civil War?
The purpose of this is to show that people 150 years ago were not very different from us today. It will hopefully bring forth an era that’s only two long lifetimes ago. This is 150 years not 1,500 years. It was just as colorful then. People were just as real then. I hope that people will look at these photographs and get a more realistic feeling of what happened at that time.
Comments (7)
There is no blood because the body had been moved and setup up for photographing. This is the same soldier that is portrayed in the Confederate Sniper Devil Den photo.
Posted by Christopher on April 29,2013 | 11:53 AM
Fantastic job! They look like they could have been taken yesterday. Really brings the period to life.
Posted by Jim Bonnett on March 2,2013 | 12:11 PM
I totally agree with Ms. Hummel.
Posted by Terry Brasko on February 27,2013 | 08:04 AM
As a civil war enthusiast and professional artist, I'm immensely disappointed with these- and with the fact that the Smithsonian is highlighting the work. I appreciate the philosophy behind the colorized photos and the amount of work that must have gone into this book, but the efforts are regrettable by industry standards. Colorizing black and white photos is a tedious process, yes, but it requires an intimate knowledge of the subtlety of color that Guntzelman clearly isn't employing. There's no account for light temperature, for colour variation in any of the subjects- you can't just jump into Photoshop and set a green layer to "color" and expect those trees to look realistic. Real colour is far more subtle than what he's achieved, and these just end up looking like poor Victorian colorizations than anything like true, colour photography. Love the idea and I ABSOLUTELY commend the author for his efforts, but I feel like a man with cinematography and difecting credits should have a better eye for something beyond local color. -Claire Hummel
Posted by Claire Hummel on February 25,2013 | 05:21 PM
Truly amazing! Thank you.
Posted by Mari on February 24,2013 | 09:50 PM
Absolutely incredible...
Posted by Kathy P on February 24,2013 | 11:34 AM
as a history and civil war fan, these are just great for a true feeling of the war and the people of that time frame, would be excited to see more and think would help us get a better idea of the scope and depth of the battlefields,people and clothes of this era's great man and woman
Posted by john griffith on February 22,2013 | 03:12 PM