As
the title of this post suggests, this is merely my opinion. It is in
no way intended to offend or to judge anyone.
I
have mixed feelings concerning the colorization of Civil War era
photos or for that practice to be applied to images made prior to
color film. This is my personal taste. To me the black and white
picture has less distraction from other things beyond the true
subject, whatever that may be. I do realize that coloring can be
helpful to some in their study. It can be looked upon as a
progression of history and the study of it.
Colorizing
photos is not new and has been around in some fashion for nearly as
long as photography itself. Numerous examples can be found in the
Library of Congress Photo and Print Collection, as well as state
archives and historical society collections. They are generally
limited to tinting the faces of the subject to add more life or
adding some gold to a uniform. Over the last couple of years there
has been a trend to digitally colorize the photographs of the
American Civil War. Colorizing the old photos can, if done correctly,
bring out subtle features that may be difficult to see in the
original black and white. Folds in a uniform, texture of the cloth,
or a button lost in the shadows are enhanced by adding color. Even
the ground of a battlefield can be better appreciated with color
added. While not quite three dimensional, color seems to sharpen the
little things in a photograph. It is an art in its own right.
Photography
of the mid Nineteenth century was a relatively new and interesting
art form. The photos generally had a central subject, or focal point,
that was intended to draw the viewer into the scene. The peripheral
objects such as grass, trees, tables, and tents were just that. They
just happened to be there. People viewing the photos at that time
knew what color the uniforms were, that the grass was green and the
sky was blue. Those things were taken for granted as they were not
the subject.
The
Twenty-first century removes us from the color of 150 years ago, and
colorizing some of the portraits can be helpful to re-enactors,
modelers, and just plain folk. It is interesting to see uniforms with
rows of shiny brass buttons, or smoke curling from a campfire. Still,
much of the coloring is based on educated guess, especially when
dealing with Confederate uniforms. Now we can see, if not perfectly,
what the soldiers were wearing, the color of the tents, tables,and
what not. That is if the viewer does not get lost in the photograph
by taking in everything. A scene with a group of officers in front of
a tent now becomes the tent, what is in it? What is that lying on the
ground next to it? What kind of tree is that? Is that a dog in the
background? The officers suddenly become superfluous, lost in the
jumble of what once was the background. A good example of this can
be seen in the following image.
 |
| Burnside with aides near Warrenton Virginia 1862 |
One
must look beyond the subject to the background to find the extra
soldiers inside the tent. The main subject, Ambrose Burnside and
aides is not appreciably lost. With color the men in the tent will
become more obvious and then become the subject. I have not seen this
in color, but it may come along. There are some photos that would
lend themselves well to color, such as the following. I believe it
has been color enhanced but I could not find a link to it.
 |
| 110th Pennsylvania Infantry near Falmouth, Virginia, December 1862 |
In
this image the subject is the soldiers, so color can enhance it
without destroying the original intent of the photographer. So yes, I
am all aboard for colorizing images such as these, although with the
first example it can be a trade off between the original intent and
the modern need to harness the images for newer interests and
purposes or just pure curiosity.
Adding
color to the images of casualties, some of which are quite grisly,
seems to be the new order of the day. Copyright considerations do not
allow me to add colored versions of images such as the following, but
they are beginning to appear. A color version of this image can be
seen here .
 |
| Dead Confederates at Antietam |
Casualty
photos were new in the Civil War. The imagery of the conflict was
largely sanitized and bloodless until after the battle of Antietam in
the Autumn of 1862. Then things changed. The photographer Alexander
Gardner had been there and soon his images would be on display at
Matthew Brady's studio in New York City. The world outside of the
immediate vicinity of a battlefield would soon see what war was. Many
families had already been touched by the war prior to Antietam and
knew of death or brutal wounds but even they were not familiar with
the stark reality depicted in Gardner's work. As a New York Times
reporter wrote on October 20, 1862:
Crowds
of people are constantly going up the stairs; follow them, and you
find them bending over
photographic views of that fearful battle-field, taken immediately
after the action. Of all the objects of horror one would think the
battle-field preeminent, that it should bear away the palm of repulsiveness. But, on the contrary, there is a terrible fascination
about it that draws one near these pictures, and makes him loath to
leave them. You will see hushed, reverent groups standing around
these weird copies of carnage, bending down to look in the pale faces
of the dead, chained by some strange spell that dwells in dead men's
eyes. It seems somewhat singular that the same sun that looked down
on the faces of the slain, blistering them, blotting out from the
bodies all semblance of humanity, and hastening corruption, should
have thus caught their features upon canvas, and given them
perpetuity for ever. But it is so.[1]
Perhaps
it is this same “terrible fascination” that is leading to
the coloring of the casualty images. This is where I become
uncomfortable with the work. Some of it is well done with only some
darkening on the uniform around the wounds. They are not much
different than the original. It is my opinion that these images
should not be modernized with color, especially some of the more
ghastly ones. My opinion may be influenced by the distance of 150
years between the event and today and I have seen the images for many
years. The originals are quite terrible enough as they are. The
distance of time and my familiarity with the images does not lessen
the terrible aspect of the images. The original purpose of them was
to show the horrors of the battlefield. They did, and they do, that
quite effectively without addition.
Perhaps
I am missing the intent behind coloring the dead. Perhaps, but I do
have to ask: what benefit can we derive from coloring them?
As
you see, I do see the benefits of coloring portraits and camp scenes
but it is the dead that I have reservations about. If it advances the
scholarship of history I will be all for it. For now though I just do
not see it.
I
will stick with the black and white, for you see, I know grass is
green, the sky is blue... And blood is red.
For
images from the 19th century to the present, including
Civil War casualties, see the following link. Images colorized and
for sale.
1-
New York Times, October 20, 1862, from
http://www.nytimes.com/1862/10/20/news/brady-s-photographs-pictures-of-the-dead-at-antietam.html?scp=84&sq=matthew+brady&st=p
Images
from the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Online Catalog
Burnside
“Warrenton, Virginia, General Ambrose E. Burnside and staff
officers” from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/cwp2003004807/PP/
Alexander Garner, photographer
“Camp of the 110th Pennsylvania Infantry, Near Falmouth, Virginia, December 1862 from
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011645181/
photographer unknown
“Antietam, Maryland; Bodies of Confederate dead gathered for burial” from
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/cwp2003000134/PP/
Alexander Gardner, photographer
