I am a photographer, I've been shooting for a long time now, but decided to get into colorizing years ago. I've always thought time travel would be fun, but changing the course of time is a pain, and it's just not worth it.
When I colorize, I'm a time traveler—seeing the up-close detail and filling in the color. My finished pieces will look as if I went back in time and shot it with my own camera. Many of them have the look of a classical painting.
This group of pictures is just New York City. Some of these buildings are gone, but you can still find some of them now.
More info: mikesavad.com | twitter.com | Instagram
This post may include affiliate links.
Flavors Of Italy, 1900
Now it looks like a painting of some sort. Yet, the details are amazing
Times Square On A Rainy Day, 1943
In this instance the black and white one gives more of that rainy day feeling. In my opinion anyway.
Tastee's And Macy's, 1942
The Short Lived Grand Central, 1900
It's Newsworthy, 1901
Jewish Market On The East Side, 1890
It is nicely done, but for me these are more "art" then "historically correct". There was not so much color these days, and in a lot of photo's a blue sky with clouds was added.
A Night Out, 1920
The Circus Is Coming To Town, 1920
Washington Street Market, Buying At Night, 1952
The contrast is gone in this one. The stones of the street should shimmer, and not in this "brown light"
A Hundred Some Years Ago, 1900
The Brooklyn Bridge, 1903
Nice photos. In my opinion there is a little too much colorization- too saturated? Not sure if that was the intention.
Right? I would think in the height of the industrial revolution everything would look dirty, sooty, grey. More like the original photos. Certainly not "that" much color.
why wouldn't it be colorful though? they always show the past as being dull, but it wasn't, it was bright. buildings in the past were just freshly built, so they would be clean and bright. later on, in our day its dirty because of the cars. if you go into your own town, its colorful right? so it would be just as bright back then.
It wasn't that saturated. These are nice, but they remind me more of paintings. If that was your intention, fair enough. If you were trying to colourize the photos and 'bring them to life' in a traditional sense, our advice is to tone it down.
We know exactly how people dressed back then, and it definitely wasn't in crayon colors. The Jewish Market picture is especially bad because of this (and because of the rainbow textile shades over the shops). Some of the pictures are really nice, though, if you get over the obsessive brown smudging everywhere. Sorry, just not my cup of tea.
These are nice, but at this point of distortion it's more like a painting than a colorized photo. I would change the title
They do point out in the bio/description that some of these look more like classical paintings.
my work looks like a painting. its designed too. it doesn't need to look like a photo.
I think the post-title is throwing people off. These are beautiful, just not what I would expect from "colorized fotos"
Is it just me or is the 'fake' sky annoying?
According to the author, everything should look like a painting, but these clouds are too realistic (looks copy paste from a photo) and often steel the spotlight from the other parts of the picture.
This comment has been deleted.
how is it annoying? the original is overcast.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Depends on your psychological outlook. Personally, I find it a 'Plus', considering the fact that these photos are of one of America's most depressing Pest-Holes. Having been through that 'place' several times, on the way to Europe, this series may give me a more favorable outlook of New Yawk. Then again, maybe not.
Nice photos. In my opinion there is a little too much colorization- too saturated? Not sure if that was the intention.
Right? I would think in the height of the industrial revolution everything would look dirty, sooty, grey. More like the original photos. Certainly not "that" much color.
why wouldn't it be colorful though? they always show the past as being dull, but it wasn't, it was bright. buildings in the past were just freshly built, so they would be clean and bright. later on, in our day its dirty because of the cars. if you go into your own town, its colorful right? so it would be just as bright back then.
It wasn't that saturated. These are nice, but they remind me more of paintings. If that was your intention, fair enough. If you were trying to colourize the photos and 'bring them to life' in a traditional sense, our advice is to tone it down.
We know exactly how people dressed back then, and it definitely wasn't in crayon colors. The Jewish Market picture is especially bad because of this (and because of the rainbow textile shades over the shops). Some of the pictures are really nice, though, if you get over the obsessive brown smudging everywhere. Sorry, just not my cup of tea.
These are nice, but at this point of distortion it's more like a painting than a colorized photo. I would change the title
They do point out in the bio/description that some of these look more like classical paintings.
my work looks like a painting. its designed too. it doesn't need to look like a photo.
I think the post-title is throwing people off. These are beautiful, just not what I would expect from "colorized fotos"
Is it just me or is the 'fake' sky annoying?
According to the author, everything should look like a painting, but these clouds are too realistic (looks copy paste from a photo) and often steel the spotlight from the other parts of the picture.
This comment has been deleted.
how is it annoying? the original is overcast.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Depends on your psychological outlook. Personally, I find it a 'Plus', considering the fact that these photos are of one of America's most depressing Pest-Holes. Having been through that 'place' several times, on the way to Europe, this series may give me a more favorable outlook of New Yawk. Then again, maybe not.