Comments on: Color photographs of old England ( 1890 year)

By: sdc

sdc — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:16:39 +0000

Michael N Hart: ?? Huh? Except for one unrelated comment, what are you talking about. Most people are simply commenting on the fact that color photography did not exist then and the title of this page is inaccurate.

Yes, the photos are nice.

By: Michael N Hart

Michael N Hart — Tue, 25 May 2010 01:00:03 +0000

Sad to see such negative comments, they looked good then and they look good now thanks.

By: Brian Seddon.

Brian Seddon. — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:31:29 +0000

Definitely hand coloured photos. My daughter, an artist, has coloured many of my old B & w photos, which I took before getting into colour photography.
Still interesting to look at, but wish they had been labelled as to thir location.

By: E

Fri, 14 May 2010 03:25:45 +0000

I thought that some of them looked more like paintings than photos. very interesting nonetheless.

By: MB

MB — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:27:31 +0000

They’re beautiful, thank you.

I collect these, from my area — Boston, MA.

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:11:59 +0000

Most of these are not color photographs, but are “colored” lithographs. Black and white photos were colored in the printing process to mimic full color photographs.

By: d

Sun, 02 May 2010 17:17:41 +0000

england was a shithole then and it’s a shithole still

By: Milander

Milander — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:12:39 +0000

These aren’t colour photos. They are black and white photos that were later coloured by hand for the tourist/journalism/collector/postcard industry often very proffesinally sometimes not. It was, if you like, the 19 century equivalent of photoshop. Anyway, how they were coloured is not important. They are beautiful and as they were coloured around the time they were taken can be said to accurately portray the correct colour proportions… except in the last photo where the beefeater looks distinctly too rosy cheeked .