File talk:Prokudin-Gorskii-09-edit2.jpg

Untitled

A comment: I don't quite understand why an *edited* version of this image would be displayed as a Featured Picture, especially one with a modified colour balance. More than being a nice picture (which it certainly is), this image is particularly interesting since it demonstrates a pioneering technique in colour photography. By changing the levels and modifying the colours, you aren't being true to the original - you might succeed in making the photo 'prettier', but it's certainly not encyclopaedic. Brokentooth 03:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally - it looks exactly like a modern photo, which is impressive IF true. However the interest (and charm) of old processes is to see them exactly as they were taken, and including the effects of aging. The colour photos of J-H Lartigue could no doubt be modernised in order to lose all their period appeal! Moel Faban 10:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a cropped version of the original; no color changes were made in this edit. 67.71.77.143 10:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then that's fine. I just saw this line - Edited by Fir0002. Levels, color balance, removal of noise, minor sharpening, and didn't quite agree with modifying colour balance and levels.Brokentooth 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the original color. No digital postprocessing done. Imagine how this looked to people in 1910 if you're so impressed by it today

OK, now I'm really amazed - I never knew such quality was achieved so long ago. Moel Faban 22:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also stunned by this picture, even after viewing it in its high-rez version. Does anyone know of other old pictures that are like this? because I still can't believe it.

--Jadger

Actually nobody back then was able to see them the way we can see them today. Color printing pretty much didn't exist, and Prokudin-Gorskii's attempts to pioneer it didn't go well. The way to display the pictures involved projecting lights through the 3 glass plates and trying to line them up, so I can imagine that the end result was of significantly lower resolution. We owe our ability to fully enjoy these pictures now to the wonders of digital processing. All of this info is already on Wikipedia, btw --QuasarTE 08:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many things this page is NOT for: General comments on the image or its subject, e.g. "aww, how cute" (Wikipedia is not a forum); or questions about the subject which have nothing to do with the image, e.g. "how is the team doing this year?" (go to the Reference Desk) - Stuff that, this photo is ace!