
Russia in color, a century ago - Xcelerate
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html
======
twelvechairs
Note that those shown are all heavily restored (also cropped) versions of the
originals. They are all from the Library of Congress collection (~1900 of the
~3500 he made). An example of an unrestored version for comparison is at
[http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/prok/item/prk20000025...](http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/prok/item/prk2000002550/).

~~~
dkroy
Honestly, even those in the link are impressive to me. Just think of where
technology was at that point in time, and what ingenuity it took to create
pictures of this quality.

~~~
vhf
I wouldn't call it "technology". It's more of a successful experiment than
technology, to me.

Color separation cameras came two decades after, and this was really a
technology : making one camera capture at the same time 3 pictures on
negative. (Where those very impressive pictures shown in the link are taken
using the color separation process but without a color separation camera, and
not on negative.)

~~~
knowtheory
I don't think the distinction you have made is valid.

Experiments are a kind of technology by any common definition. Just because
this never rolled out into mass production doesn't mean that it wasn't a
systematic application of scientific/engineering principles.

~~~
001sky
_Au Contraire_. Its not clear <you> are able to distinguish _technique_ from
technology. And even if so, how much proportional impact is technique vs.
technology. And even then, and in this case in particular, _ex-post-facto_ how
much technology and/or technique have been applied to put these images online.

------
derrida
I notice they have a picture of Tblisi
([http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bi...](http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p05_00004434.jpg))
, which is now in Georgia (not Russia). Tblisi is a rather beautiful looking
place, here is a recent picture from almost the same place
<http://www.experience.hk/wp-content/uploads/Tbilisi-4.jpg>

~~~
jdabney
It is amazing how many trees have grown back.

~~~
tangus
I don't think they grew back; they are probably the result of modern
irrigation.

------
shawnc
These are so amazing. The world wasn't sepia toned a hundred years ago! As
silly as that statement is, my brain is actually having a hard time really
believing these photos are from 100 years ago. I'm in awe.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
So goes the joke:

    
    
      "Dad, why are there only black-and-white photos from before the early 1900s?"
    
      "Because you see, son, the world actually was black-and-white back then."
    
      "Then why were there colour portraits?"
    
      "Because you see, son, artists were insane."

~~~
lysol
^ Calvin and Hobbes

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Ah, thank you, I didn't know the source.

------
lisnake
I come from the place where majority of these photos were taken (Ural
mountains). Here is comparisons of landscapes on these old photos with current
view — <http://ufa.livejournal.com/2259613.html>
<http://ufa.livejournal.com/2248707.html>
<http://ufa.livejournal.com/2248073.html> Actually, in my opinion, not much
have changed

------
ollysb
I've always found it interesting that people's perception of history is
coloured(couldn't resist) by having only seen it in black and white. You
almost have to remember that the world wasn't actually in black and white 100
years ago. It's fascinating to see photos from that far back in colour, it
somehow makes it easier to empathise with the people in the shots.

~~~
bergie
Another good one is seeing ancient Greek and Roman statues in the colors they
had and not just dull, white marble

[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?device=andr...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?device=android&articleID=19828084)

~~~
diggan
These statues are painted afterwards and is probably not the "true" colors.

------
Xcelerate
What amazes me the most is how good the quality is. These photos are better
than those from my smartphone, and they're over a century old!

I do wonder how well he was able to view his own photos.

One thing that struck me was how much "nature" there is. The cities seems
quite a bit smaller and more contained than they do today.

~~~
artursapek
I'm sure he was able to view them well using a projector. Displays like that
were the initial purpose of photography like this. Positives of these would
have overlapped to make up the same images you see here.

By the way, I think it's sort of a shame to even compare smartphone digital
photos to film photography. Of course they look better.

~~~
derleth
> Of course they look better.

Why?

~~~
delinka
Because film captures details in _molecules_ while a CCD sensor in your
digital camera uses picture elements much, much, much larger than molecules.

Or, because it's analog. It's very similar to sound recordings. Whether
magnetic or not (say, in vinyl) the resolution of the captured signal can
approach the molecular. Digital has a discreet resolution limited by the
capturing equipment; for example, CDs reproduce the volume in a sound
recording only 44,100 times per second. But a magnetic tape has a resolution
limited only by the number of molecules passing the recording head every
second (the more [i.e. the faster the tape], the better.)

~~~
parallel
The spacial resolution of analog photographs is not at the scale of individual
molecules. It is limited by the "grain" of the film [1]. Other factors include
distortions from lens shape imperfections in the lens material.

Audio tapes record their signal in magnetic domains. These are areas of tape
the are large enough to be written and read. Much larger than anything
approaching the scale of individual molecules.

Sound recordings on vinly are similarly limited by other factors. To "read"
the signal from a record groove a needle is dragged a needle through a v
shaped groove. This needle jiggles up and down and left and right, hence the
two channels in stereo. The time resolution of the signal (max frequency) is
limited by the physics of the jiggling head. It's inertia prevents it from
reading signals over a certain limiting frequency. Again, well before the
molecular level.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain>

[edit] - Changed momentum to inertia in the last paragraph.

~~~
mistercow
A couple points to add to that: with vinyl, the recording process itself (for
which there are several techniques) also adds noise. The recording head (in
whatever form) is also subject to physical laws. The materials used at each
stage of the process are also not ideal substrates. Hell, vinyl is a _polymer_
, which means it's a big tangle of chained molecules. Even if everything else
were perfect, it would not be possible to write data at a molecular scale into
such a medium.

------
Adlai
Surprisingly good quality, considering his method. You get the best sense of
his method when it goes a bit wrong, in photo 27:
[http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_c...](http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html#photo27)

My favorite picture is #15, the cathedral:
[http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_c...](http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html#photo15)

~~~
daeken
What's most interesting to me, personally, is the water in these photos.
Because the water is constantly moving, capturing the filtered images
repeatedly won't work -- you end up capturing different images for RGB. That's
what gives you that really neat rainbow effect; it looks like oil in a
rainpuddle.

Edit: You can see some of this in photo 18 where the stems of the flowers were
presumably moving very slightly:
[http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_c...](http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html#photo18)

Edit #2: I just realized that I've used the same exact "effect" in demo code.
I had a function in a shader that would generate a pixel color given a time
value; I ran it three times for each pixel with a slightly different time
value and then grabbed an R/G/B from each of them. You ended up with the same
exact rainbow effect that was subtle when motion was limited and extreme when
high speed motion was occurring. Not that that adds a ton to this thread, but
I got a kick out of it.

~~~
vhf
>Because the water is constantly moving, capturing the filtered images
repeatedly won't work -- you end up capturing different images for RGB.

You're right, of course. But don't forget that the shutter speed was very low
on these images. It would have harmed if the shutter speed was high : short
exposure time of quickly moving water would have given very different water
images for RGB. When exposing longer, motion blur makes the water seem to
flow, becoming soft and blurry.

------
alecperkins
I was first amazed at the quality, then surprised that these were taken more
recently than I expected, in 1910. Then, I realized that, duh, that was 102
years ago. It's strange how even 100+ years ago is getting more and more
recent. (Obviously, that's how it works. But perception lags quite a bit.)

~~~
cek
> _It's strange how even 100+ years ago is getting more and more recent._

I think you are absolutely right with this. As the rate of change increases
(and it has been rapidly increasing for the last 150 years) it makes sense
that history would compress too. Fascinating!

~~~
olavk
I don't think the rate of change increases. In just a few years after these
pictures Russia will be involved in WWI, then revolution and civil war. After
than Stalin, then WWII. Millions and millions of people will have their lives
changed and shattered by these enormous changes.

Sure, today we get a new cell phone model each year, but I don't think this
kind of change is as bag as e.g. revolution and world war.

------
corford
If you enjoyed those and don't know who Albert Kahn is, you should also check
out:

<http://www.albertkahn.co.uk/photos.html>

<http://www.albertkahn.co.uk/about.html>

There's a small museum in Paris dedicated to his work (situated on the grounds
of Kahn's old estate no less) which is a wonderful experience if you're ever
in Paris and looking for something cultural to do that's a bit off the beaten
track. It's on the end of the metro line and is an oasis of calm compared to
the typical Louvre pandemonium :)

Edit: found the link to the museum: <http://albert-kahn.hauts-de-
seine.net/english/>

------
jackflintermann
CS129 (Computational Photography) at Brown actually has students reconstruct
these same photos as its first assignment. It's not too hard, and a good
introduction to image alignment. Check out the assignment at
<http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs129/asgn/proj1/>

------
mgkimsal
No one is smiling. Not even the kids. Maybe the woman in #20 is, who knows? I
know in general 'old time' photos didn't have people smiling much - very posed
pictures and stoic expressions. I wonder if they had any idea how much this
would color our impression of them 100+ years later?

~~~
mladenkovacevic
I think smiling for a photograph must be some sort of social training that
humans either take to or don't.

I, for example, still find it very difficult and unnatural to smile for
photographs unless I am already smiling about something else and the picture
is just a candid moment caught at that time.

I would imagine that this old picture taking process (3 separate pictures with
different filters each time) took quite a bit of time and subjects had to be
posed for a a longer period of time. It would be very difficult to hold a
smile for that long, and especially in those early photography days when the
smiling-for-pictures convention still hasn't been established.

~~~
robbiep
reminds me of the story (not sure if it is true or not) of how the telephone
revolutionised the world - prior to that, you had to be introduced to someone
by a third party before you could speak to them; subsequent to the telephone
the word 'hello' was invented. Or so the story goes

~~~
dredmorbius
Myth busted: <http://www.pitara.com/discover/5wh/online.asp?story=184>

~~~
robbiep
Thanks for the link. Would have been nifty if 'Ahoy!' had of caught on!

This is the reference which backs up my point, however it makes it slightly
more eloquently- saying that 'Hello' was a way to cut across Social barriers
which were much more rigid before the invention:

[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AgLDhOySfMgC&lpg=PA3...](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AgLDhOySfMgC&lpg=PA347&ots=t4Xo12tdjD&dq=hello%20dr%20livingstone%20i%20presume%20telephone%20introductions&pg=PA347#v=onepage&q=hello%20dr%20livingstone%20i%20presume%20telephone%20introductions&f=false)

Ps apologies for the mess

------
bcl
Previously seen 749 days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1621517>

~~~
wtn
These photos were first posted online about ten years ago.

------
photorized
Looking at these feels like time travel.

~~~
derekp7
It's funny, I got the exact same impression. Normally when you think of the
past, you think of black & white, or faded color. But if you took a ride in a
time machine, of course the past would look as vibrant as anything you
currently see. As a side note, I've noticed that when TV programs show a film
clip from 30 years ago (say the early 80's), such as old sporting event clips,
they add a false color fade to make the clip look old -- even though most of
the film clips (and any non-film based storage) from that time would not have
suffered such degradation.

~~~
photorized
Exactly. These don't look "old", there is no retro feel to them, especially
with the landscapes. Messes with your head.

------
azernik
One question - was the artist himself capable of reassembling the monochrome
frames into a color picture, or did he just take the pictures and stick them
in an archive until someone could develop them properly?

EDIT: Answered my own question - apparently, the slides were originally
intended to be projected together (with differently-colored lights) onto a
wall, as color prints were too expensive.

------
ilamont
I love the fact that these photos capture a landscape without cars. It is
especially striking in the shots of cities. Imagine what it would look like if
a photo of the same locations were taken now -- more pavement and cars, fewer
trees.

~~~
kbolino
Actually, you might be surprised about the tree part. Take a look at Tbilisi
then and now, and you'll see more trees now.

------
keyle
I did see that, in 2010. And the title misslead me to think of something new.
Could we please tag titles appropriately? ie. (2010)

------
capkutay
The locations of these photos are pretty significant to the etymologies of
many groups of people, spanning from modern day Turks, Koreans, Japanese, and
even Native Americans.

(at least some people have proposed this).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages>

~~~
guard-of-terra
Can you be more clear? Because I see a lot of photos from caucasus, urals,
middle east and not much Siberia.

------
kghose
Can any one post a link to the equipment details - design/description,
anything? Thanks.

------
johnohara
Picture #30: Clicking the Google Map link shows three bridges that cross the
river today. The center bridge appears to be the one from the photograph.

Those stone piers are beautiful and my guess, still fully functional 100 years
later.

------
verelo
This makes me realized how amazing it will be having tools like Instagram,
having captured millions of photos, in around 100 years from now.

~~~
georgemcbay
I have mixed feelings about that.

Millions of recent GPS tagged photographs floating around in the cloud have
some incredibly cool technical potential when combined with something like
PhotoSynth, but culturally I think ubiquitous photos actually weaken the
historical impact.

To loosely stick with the Russian theme, a peek into a single moment in the
life one person 100 years ago is fascinating, but a million peeks into a
single moment in the life of a million people 100 years ago is just data.

~~~
sonnenkiste
Will all these Instagram pictures be there in 100 years? What happens if
Instagram shuts down?

------
diziet
Strangely enough most of the photos now would not be considered those of
Russia, but would be other distinct countries.

~~~
azernik
Yup - the series is titled "Travels in the Russian Empire", and it really was
a multinational empire back then.

------
aritraghosh007
Wonderful !

Wonder how many of these historical remains are still present in Russia? Would
love to visit the country once.

------
keiferski
Just think: in 50-100 years, the phrase "100 years ago" won't mean that much,
in terms of technology.

~~~
thematt
Really? Why do you suppose? In 50-100 years, I can easily see us having a
permanent presence on another planet, fully automated vehicles and a
Terminator like military comprised completely of robots. That world (if true),
technologically, would look amazingly different than how we live today.

~~~
keiferski
Okay, maybe a better word choice would have been "certain" technologies.
Seeing photographs of the 50s in 2050 won't seem all that amazing.

~~~
kalleboo
Unless we figure out how to create realistic full-color 3D holograms, or at
least highly-improved glasses-free stereographic displays. In that case,
anything pre-stereography will look very "flat", and the relatively few
stereographic photos taken today could have the same impact as these color
photos from the article

------
ekianjo
Old - this was already linked on HN a while ago I believe. But if you haven't
seen it, it's nice.

------
intenex
So, apparently smiling in pictures is a relatively new trend?

~~~
zwischenzug
I don't know if this was the case here, but in other pictures of the time
people didn't smile so much in photos as the slow shutter speed meant they
were more likely to blur, as a smile is harder to maintain than a neutral
expression.

------
sonnenkiste
How can I vote a news down? Because this isn't "news". I've seen it two years
ago. Really great pictures, but no news ...

------
leak
Looking at their faces, no one seems happy. Not a single smile in any photo
including those of kids. Kinda depressing.

~~~
vsviridov
Well, they have to maintain their pose and expression for 3 consecutive shots.

If you look at old daguerreotypes people have really weird expressions in them
as well, because they had to be still for long time.

------
combataircraft
This is not Russia!

------
markiel
This had been in the "news" for the past 5 years if not longer. How many times
can it makes the frontage? ;)

<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>

~~~
JshWright
I've probably seen this set of images half a dozen times. I still find myself
scrolling through the whole set every time it pops up. It's really a stunning
set of images, and absolutely worth enjoying more than once.

