leis it an "age" thing?
Discussion
MK4 Slowride said:
I'd love to have been around when everything went from Black & white to colour. Imagine being sat about tripping, schmoking a spliff and suddently *poof* & in a moment of clarity everything went technicolour.
Amazing times, one of those 'where were you' moments I'm sure.
Funnily enough with the "Today" Newspaper just looking at the colour pictures made you feel sAmazing times, one of those 'where were you' moments I'm sure.
tfaced 
such was the quality of the printingThere is a HUGE amount of film and stills footage in colour from the 1930s onwards. In fact, there are even lots of stills colour photographs from the Edwardian era (1901 to 1910).
Germany was a world leader in the development of colour film (think Agfa, BASF, Leica etc) so there was a lot of it around in the 1930s and 40s.
The US (Kodak, mainly) also produced lots of colour film for home useage in the 1930s. Quite a bit was imported into the UK so there are lots of British colour 8mm home movies from before the war.
During the war, most film issued to professional photographers and used by the newsreel companies was black and whiote so the bulk of the stuff we tend to see is B&W - but there is a lot of colour material around from that period.
Regarding the 1966 World Cup, it was shown on TV in black and white only. Colour TV did not commence in the UK until 1967. The video recordings of the final are therefore from the BBC's black and white TV broadcasts.
However, during that World Cup, a made for cinema documentary called "Goal" was shot. Being intended for cinematic release, it was shot in glorious techniclour. Most of the colour footage you see of the 1966 World Cup comes from that film.
On balance, when the BBC are doing a retrospective on the 1966 tournament, they use their own B & W video recordings. When ITV are doing one, they use clips from "Goal".
Germany was a world leader in the development of colour film (think Agfa, BASF, Leica etc) so there was a lot of it around in the 1930s and 40s.
The US (Kodak, mainly) also produced lots of colour film for home useage in the 1930s. Quite a bit was imported into the UK so there are lots of British colour 8mm home movies from before the war.
During the war, most film issued to professional photographers and used by the newsreel companies was black and whiote so the bulk of the stuff we tend to see is B&W - but there is a lot of colour material around from that period.
Regarding the 1966 World Cup, it was shown on TV in black and white only. Colour TV did not commence in the UK until 1967. The video recordings of the final are therefore from the BBC's black and white TV broadcasts.
However, during that World Cup, a made for cinema documentary called "Goal" was shot. Being intended for cinematic release, it was shot in glorious techniclour. Most of the colour footage you see of the 1966 World Cup comes from that film.
On balance, when the BBC are doing a retrospective on the 1966 tournament, they use their own B & W video recordings. When ITV are doing one, they use clips from "Goal".
Being the "yoof" I gather you were on about my comments in the Nazi thread. Reason being for me is, it gives a lot more depth to the pictures, you get to see the people for who they were, what they stood for, not black and white grainey badly scanned in blobs.
Gives more reality to the pictures, if thats the right way to put it, we all know what happened, but the photos give more depth to it, show that these people were really on this world, this how life was back then, how you would actually see it if you were there, something none of us "yoof" will ever experience
What is wrong with that? Why is it wrong that we can now get a better idea of that era, there is a massive difference between looking at a photo of a black and white street with black and white buildings, black and white flags,to actually looking back, seeing the colour and depth of the real place,getting a better atmospherical understanding of the time
As for the 1966 world cup, to be honest I couldnt care less if they went back in time and filmed it in HD, still wouldnt watch it
Gives more reality to the pictures, if thats the right way to put it, we all know what happened, but the photos give more depth to it, show that these people were really on this world, this how life was back then, how you would actually see it if you were there, something none of us "yoof" will ever experience
What is wrong with that? Why is it wrong that we can now get a better idea of that era, there is a massive difference between looking at a photo of a black and white street with black and white buildings, black and white flags,to actually looking back, seeing the colour and depth of the real place,getting a better atmospherical understanding of the time
As for the 1966 world cup, to be honest I couldnt care less if they went back in time and filmed it in HD, still wouldnt watch it
No need to be aggressive 
B & W does not need to be grainy. There is some stunning B & W footage out there too. You only have to look at the beautiful cinematographic work of Leife Riefenstall to see that the Nazis could make their cause look great, even in B & W.
Have a search on youtube for "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympiad".
B & W does not need to be grainy. There is some stunning B & W footage out there too. You only have to look at the beautiful cinematographic work of Leife Riefenstall to see that the Nazis could make their cause look great, even in B & W.
Have a search on youtube for "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympiad".
Semi hemi said:
Prompted by the "Nazi's in colour" thread
Why do some people seem unable to relate to events that happened unless they are depicted in colour.
is it that unless you are older and grew up in a time when TV and all newspapers were in black & white, it has to be in colour to be "real"
Bit of a daft thing to say to be honest.Why do some people seem unable to relate to events that happened unless they are depicted in colour.
is it that unless you are older and grew up in a time when TV and all newspapers were in black & white, it has to be in colour to be "real"
It is human nature to try and comprehend and process what we see and hear. In the case of the shocking images from the WW2, the vast majority would have been in black and white. Since these are the images that we see the most, we associate the images, type and even quality with that time. Take the Hiroshima bomb, we only see black and white images and comprehend the brutality of what it is in such context. To then have this suddenly in colour changes our perception and understanding - the colours add depth and change the meaning, we haven't been brought up seeing colour images and hence we need to re-assess the whole thing again. The old adage of becoming accustomed to something it utterly true, see black and white images of a WW2 bomber falling out of the air and we look on with a slightly dispassionate eye. Add colour and suddenly everything has changed, we now see a different image and hence need to process what we are seeing again - for example, someone dying!
Its not colour per se, more that the perception and processing that the brain does on the images that is the cause here. To suddenly force people to re-assess everything they have learnt about the period naturally means its very different. Of course, this is for people brought up after the event. For others who lived through it, I am sure they see the colour images each and every day....
Lets not forget, for some, its just as vivid today as it ever was and no colour images can ever portray that.
Have any of you seen George Stephenson's footage contained in "D-Day to Berlin". I first saw it in 1985 and it really did make the 1944/45 period come to life in a way B & W newsreel footage could never do.
I am sure that this film must have been inspiration for Spielberg and Hanks and led them on the road to "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers".
I am sure that this film must have been inspiration for Spielberg and Hanks and led them on the road to "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers".
Semi hemi said:
Prompted by the "Nazi's in colour" thread
Why do some people seem unable to relate to events that happened unless they are depicted in colour.
is it that unless you are older and grew up in a time when TV and all newspapers were in black & white, it has to be in colour to be "real"
I think that it is quite possible that as a society we find it easier to culturally detach ourselves from black and white images. By being more stylized and iconographic we can see them as removed from our own experiences (not just becase humans see in colour). Sometimes seing things in colour when your not used to seeing things like that cn be surprising. The black and white/sepia image can easily be fetishized; sometimes as part of the past. Why do some people seem unable to relate to events that happened unless they are depicted in colour.
is it that unless you are older and grew up in a time when TV and all newspapers were in black & white, it has to be in colour to be "real"
The Riddler said:
I was half watching something last week, and it had the world cup '66 on it, only in colour.
How utterly ste that was. I'd rather watch a grainy black and white image than something doctored to appeal to the yoof.
16mm colour film was also shot at the time, only the Broadcast TV coverage was B+W.How utterly s
te that was. I'd rather watch a grainy black and white image than something doctored to appeal to the yoof.Non-footballing
tonyvid said:
The Riddler said:
I was half watching something last week, and it had the world cup '66 on it, only in colour.
How utterly ste that was. I'd rather watch a grainy black and white image than something doctored to appeal to the yoof.
16mm colour film was also shot at the time, only the Broadcast TV coverage was B+W.How utterly s
te that was. I'd rather watch a grainy black and white image than something doctored to appeal to the yoof.Non-footballing
Ironically, since 1963, some programmes made for showing on ITV were already being recorded on colour film. This was because these programmes were for export to the USA where they had already had colour TV from the late 1950s/early 1960s.
Lew Grade's company, ITC was the main source of this early ITV colour work. and most of Grade commissioned programming - such as "Stingray", "Thunderbirds", "Man in a Suitcase", later editions of "The Saint" and "The Champions" were being shot in colour even though viewers in the UK only had B & W TV.
off_again said:
Semi hemi said:
Prompted by the "Nazi's in colour" thread
Why do some people seem unable to relate to events that happened unless they are depicted in colour.
is it that unless you are older and grew up in a time when TV and all newspapers were in black & white, it has to be in colour to be "real"
Bit of a daft thing to say to be honest.Why do some people seem unable to relate to events that happened unless they are depicted in colour.
is it that unless you are older and grew up in a time when TV and all newspapers were in black & white, it has to be in colour to be "real"
It is human nature to try and comprehend and process what we see and hear. In the case of the shocking images from the WW2, the vast majority would have been in black and white. Since these are the images that we see the most, we associate the images, type and even quality with that time. Take the Hiroshima bomb, we only see black and white images and comprehend the brutality of what it is in such context. To then have this suddenly in colour changes our perception and understanding - the colours add depth and change the meaning, we haven't been brought up seeing colour images and hence we need to re-assess the whole thing again. The old adage of becoming accustomed to something it utterly true, see black and white images of a WW2 bomber falling out of the air and we look on with a slightly dispassionate eye. Add colour and suddenly everything has changed, we now see a different image and hence need to process what we are seeing again - for example, someone dying!
Its not colour per se, more that the perception and processing that the brain does on the images that is the cause here. To suddenly force people to re-assess everything they have learnt about the period naturally means its very different. Of course, this is for people brought up after the event. For others who lived through it, I am sure they see the colour images each and every day....
Lets not forget, for some, its just as vivid today as it ever was and no colour images can ever portray that.
I would just like to say, That seeing footage of, for instance, the liberation of Auschwitz, in colour did not make me think that it was any worse than I had already perceived through the b&w imagery.
In fact sometimes I feel that colour film, can have the opposite effect of distracting from the subject being filmed.
Slightly off topic i know but, would Shindlers List have had more impact if it was shot in full colour?
Hard news photo journalism in mainly broad sheet newpapers still seem to use b&w to great effect and only use colour when it is integral to the subject either to shock or entertain.
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to the drawing room to straighten my antimacassers & listen to my phonogram.
Toodle pip!
Edited by Semi hemi on Monday 16th February 17:21
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff