User:K.e.coffman/Colourised photograhs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on English Wikipedia[edit]

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 140#Use of Nazi propaganda images
    • "I think a careful, lifelike colourisation isn't a problem - it's up to the community whether to use it or not, though." (Hohum)
    • "I agree that only original images should be used. (...) Encyclopedic content requires the use of authentic material and editors should not have to wonder whether a particular colorized image is 'correct'." (Johnuniq)
    • "Historians, however, generally do not deal with colorized images. The integrity of the primary source has to be maintained. (...) Thus Wikipedia should also consider colorization to be an inappropriate manipulation of a primary source." (Assayer)
    • "I would oppose "modern" colorizations if I ran into them on articles I'm editing." (Ealdgyth)
    • "I find colorization offensive as a practise. (...) That deceptiveness, however subtle, should be avoided in an encyclopedia, when uncolored examples exist." (TREKphiler)
    • "I think [colourising] has its uses and can have added value in limited situations, but it shouldn't be widely encouraged. To call it irresponsible is somewhat hyperbolic, but there should be some restraint – we don't need to see everything in colour, but in some cases it enhances the experience and can add a bit of substance to bland images." (MarcusBritish)

Discussion on German Wikipedia[edit]

  • Colourised Nazi-era pictures from the Federal Archives on Commons; translations mine:
    • "Nazi-glorifying colouring of Nazi images"
    • "historical distortions"
    • "leaves the impression that the original picture is not black-and-white"
    • "not only nonsense, but also a tangible WP:OR" (Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung)
    • "Images need to meet "Authenticity of the subject" requirement (Wikipedia:Artikel illustrieren#Echtheit (Authentizität) des Motivs)
    • "Please consistently remove such coloured images. Such color-changed images are a source forgery. (...) Images (in this case contemporary recordings from the Nazi era) are also sources and these can not be changed by third parties."
    • "such images are unsuitable for encyclopaedic purposes"
    • "It's incomprehensible that some [on Commons] find such coloured images actually usable for educational purposes."

Discussion on Dutch Wikipedia[edit]

Historic photos: Black & white or coloured?, translations mine:

  • "The coloring of photographs is simply history falsification, irrespective of the integrity with which it is colored, and therefore certainly not permissible without a clear indication that it is a colored photograph. (...) PS The examples above are shocking: on the coloured photos, the people seem to suddenly like dolls, or zombies." (Jürgen Eissink)[1][2]
  • "Particularly undesirable original research (also unclear to what extent professionally executed), unless for example it is mentioned that the image is the result of years of study by an expert." (Encycloon)
  • "The original is preferred." (Bjelka)
  • "As far as I am concerned, the original is also preferable." (Hanhil)
  • Agree [that the original is preferred]. But I have to say that I find these colourations very handsome. (...) [just] not in the article itself. (Erik Wannee)
  • Prefer the original. And especially if the colourant is an amateur. (Nature12)
  • Using the coloured version of a black-and-white photograph in an article seems undesirable to me if the original is also available. Eliminating minute mistakes that have arisen later (scratch, dots, etc.) is acceptable. (Robotje)
  • "The coloured pictures of the two Feldwebels at the top of the thread are especially kitschy and add nothing to our historical consciousness. Those photo edits are, if I have understood correctly, not the result of thorough scientific research, but only the work of a photo-shopping amateur." (Matroos Vos)
  • "Self-coloured photographs by Wikipedians (...) in our articles by Wikipedians should not be allowed, because it concerns unskilled home art, well-intentioned quibbling, and original research." (Sailor Fox) Wikipedia:Geen origineel onderzoek (WP:OR, Dutch version).
  • "Work from others that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia can be useful elsewhere, perhaps even on another WM project. I would rather refer to it with the name of the directive (original research) than with eg "tinkering". If it does not serve an educational function, it can still have aesthetic value". (Woudloper)
  • "That dogma in what is allowed and not allowed is really so useless." (TheDJ)
    • "If you do indeed have a history book or other encyclopedia in which such images are used, give us a referral, then let me convince myself." (Woudloper)

When colourising is art[edit]

An informative article from the Netherlands Broadcasting Foundation:

Interestingly, the article contains B&W and colour comparisons of the Stroop Report photo included in the "Nazi Germany in colour!" gallery. The amateur version (Warschauer Ghetto-Aufstand, Verhaftungen recolored looks much more colourful, almost "cheerful". From the article:

It is perhaps the biggest problem with the photographs for critics. The colouring is a subtle history falsification, in which viewers can forget that Amaral works on the cutting edge of history and art. In a time of fake news that could decrease confidence in the original.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ The colourised image that started this discussion is now on it's 4th version, still creepy as ever: File:Ernst_Ritter.jpg on Commons.
  2. ^ Feldmarschall von Leeb is also on its fourth revision; still looking like a "doll".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:K.e.coffman/Colourised_photograhs&oldid=864242721"