Artist Stunningly Colorizes Old Photos with a Whimsical Twist
Accomplished photographer and digital artist Jane Long does not simply colorize old photographs, she creates new works of art using old scenes.
Her project, called Dancing with Costic , was originally made after Long decided to practice some of her retouching skills. She became fascinated with the Costic Acsinte Archive , but wanted to give them new life.
"More than that I wanted to give them a story," Long states in her description of the project.
The archive consists of the images of Acsinte, a WWI war photographer who went on to open a photo studio. And Long's interpretation of those images gives them new life. Although she says that she will probably never know the true life stories of her subjects, they became characters of her own invention.
Long describes the project as more of a collaboration with another photographer. Though she will never be able to meet Acsinte, she helped expose his work to a new generation of admirers with a whimsical interpretation of the past.
http://mashable.com/2015/08/17/colorized-photographs-enhanced/
Tags
Who is online
168 visitors
Amazing beauty in these transformed photographs.
I am constantly amazed at the breadth of talent in many modern day photographers and digital artists
I bet these people would love what she did with their photos.
I bet they would, too!
How lovely they are!
Both old and new, carry a special beauty.
Excellent find RIO.
Pat
I imagine they would love the result
Thanks for the perspective
Dowser
I am glad you liked the photos
Thanks for the feedback
Kavika
I agree the message is transformed and enhanced in the new pictures, but not necessarily totally changed
Thanks for the feedback
Colorizing, restoring old photos is an art not merely "coloring book" so-to-speak. There is a philosophical, if not an ethicalor legal issue, that is, if the original maker of the image is not the one colorizing/modifying -- AS OPPOSED TO RESTORING-- namely,might that original image-maker (or the current, rightful owner of said image)
1) Have a legal issue regarding the making a "derivative" by a non-copyright holder/non-owner?
I will answer subsequently, but first, I'm curious to know what readers' opinions/thoughts are regarding the question.
Legalities aside, I definitely want to read opinions as to the philosophical implications not regarding restoring an image to its original or near-original state, rather, to intentionally making derivatives.
A Mac
Wow I had not thought of the legal issues or other concerns you mention
I was merely enjoying the beauty of the creation and the talent of the photographer.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with creating a new and different image from an existing one so long as credit is given for the source work of the original artist from which the derivative is created.
Acknowledgment of the original creation gives credit to the original artist in my view which is done in this article by the artist who created these new pictures.
You didn't say if you liked the creations or not
Beats me
A MAc knows of these things far better than I
Legally, a copyright expires after 70 years, Cerenkov, so legally, there is no problem provided the "intellectual property" becomes "public domain.
But, if the owner of the image controls its use, be it in digital form, or, the actual physical image, that owner holds the de facto copyrights and it cannot be legally published, transmitted, etc., without permission. If done so without proper licensing, it is "copyright infringement".
Philosophically, I have mixed feelings it all depends on how a given image is modified its original significance and how/when/where the derivative is used.
Without giving specific reasons, aesthetically, I like them all contextually only 3 and 4 (from the top).
But, if the owner of the image controls its use, be it in digital form, or, the actual physical image, that owner holds the de facto copyrights and it cannot be legally published, transmitted, etc., without permission. If done so without proper licensing, it is "copyright infringement".
When my wife and I lived in L.A. we'd often go to what I refer to as a "Flea Market" at Fairfax High School on Sunday's. There was always at least one vendor who had large cardboard boxes of old photographs that all looked liked they had come from a whole bunch of different family's photo albums. All of them were real and I used to think to myself that, with the equipment that is available today, someone could make someone's loved one or friend look evil, pornographic, clownish, etc.
It would seem to me to be very difficult to determine who owned some old photographs to get permission to use them and nearly as difficult to prove that someone had used one of your family's old ones.
1) Have a legal issue regarding the making a "derivative" by a non-copyright holder/non-owner?
She became fascinated with the Costic Acsinte Archive
I assume she had permission from the Archive to use these photos.
If the flea market vendor legally possessed the photos, then it was his right to market them with certain caveats. As long as any derivations and any editorial information accompanying them did not violate rights-of-privacy, were not modified in such a way as to violate "decency," etc. laws, no issues.
That would apply to the photo-buyers at the flea market as well; I would not expect the vendor to have buyers sign usage-agreements, nor, to issue releases.
There is always the possibility that an image will be used without proper licensing; but in the digital age, one would be surprised that some who "pirate" images get caught and pay the price and then some.
Some of my most lucrative sales years were attributable to my agents discovering the unauthorized use of an image of mine, issuing a cease and desist order and recovering the legitimate use fee plus a huge penalty.
If the flea market vendor legally possessed the photos, then it was his right to market them with certain caveats.
I doubt he's ever been asked and I wonder where he got them all? Maybe he bought them from someone else who sold them to him in bulk? They may have already passed through many hands. I never bought any because I don't know any of the people, so why would I want them? Though some were very nicely done. Still I suppose someone might buy some of them and attempt to use them as stock pictures and get caught. One never knows.
Most fascinating. To me the one of the two kids in front of the mirror is exceptionally creative.
AMac
Appreciate the feedback thanks
pat
I am making that same assumption - I do not know for sure
R W
Glad you liked them - thanks for the feedback
Buzz
I liked that one and the two kinds standing by the stream
Thanks for the feedack
Two of the reasons I found it fascinating is because the mirror image shows the kids more grown up, perhaps even adult, and also the combining of the two individual vintage shots into one very believable pose.
Buzz
I missed that but you are absolutely correct
My eyes are getting old I guess
Thanks for pointing that out