Users who Dugg This
Dainis Grāveris
3672 Followers
Dainis Grāveris
3672 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Zeljko Sop
736 Followers







zoshchenkoAug 20, 2010
Incredible photos! Amazingly good quality for such an early use of color film.
0260Aug 21, 2010
it is not film. i remember reading the dude that took those pictures never actually got to see them in color since there was no process to merge those RGB plates.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrAug 21, 2010
From the original article: " He then presented these images in color in slide lectures using a light-projection system [right] involving the same three filters."
He not only got to see it, he showed it to several others.
0260Aug 21, 2010
you are right. but could they make prints from that?
madbadgerAug 21, 2010
He did not make color prints from it. Only could view with 3 projector system.
sanmanAug 21, 2010
picture #20 - look, things haven't changed for women in a century! Way to go, Left! Go pat yourselves on the back now!
jakem1Aug 22, 2010
Are you simple? What has that got to do with the left? Would that be like me pointing out that the right's solution to her problem is to simply blow her and her family up and then claim that they've been liberated?
Anyway, the Khazak government is supported by the US politically and economically - apparently they're a great ally in the war on terror. Unsurprisingly, they also tend to rely on torture and other human rights abuses to run their sorry little police state.
http://www.amnesty.name/en/library/info/EUR57/001/2010/en
Your right-wing "kill everyone to ensure the US economy grows" policies certainly don't seem to be helping people in that part of the world.
durannarudAug 21, 2010
Interestingly, if you took a picture in Russia today, it would come out black & white.
soaveAug 21, 2010
I opened number 27 in Photoshop to see if I could fix the color misalignments. When I looked at the different channels, I found that these photos are taken at three different times, one with a red filter, one with blue, and one with green. You can see people's heads turn when skipping between channels. I had no idea this was how color photos were accomplished back then.
madbadgerAug 21, 2010
It's actually not that hard. Of course he was a genius for doing this 100 years ago. But today, knowing the concept, is very easy. Take 3 black and white photos with a red, then green, then blue filter. Done.
c2productionsAug 22, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
soaveAug 22, 2010
Full disclosure: I skipped straight to the pictures. Very innovative technique though!
atarioAug 22, 2010
Not color film. Black and white film with color filters. And you ask everyone to hold really still through the three shots.
mfultonSep 4, 2010
It wasn't color film... it was three separate black and white negatives exposed through red, green, and blue filters. That's why you see the little rainbow shimmering on anything that moved in between the exposures, like moving water, tree branches, or people in some cases.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Awesome pictures!
i38warhawkAug 20, 2010
The quality is astounding. This photo (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html#photo30) in particular looks like it might have been snapped yesterday.
Another great series from The Big Picture!
spinfusorAug 21, 2010
Your closing parenthesis got attached as part of the link.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html#photo30
mattharvey716Aug 22, 2010
You are forgetting that the quality of digital when it first came out was much worse than film and is only just starting to overtake 35mm film in the last few years. Large format film photography still produces the highest resolution images and it will be a few more years before it is over taken by digital.
x2ardenAug 22, 2010
Prokudin-Gorskii didn't use film, these and all early photographs where large glass plates or metal. Which had even more detail that later film. This is before plastic remember?
mfultonSep 4, 2010
Glass plates do not inherently have any more detail than film. It's the size of the negative that provided the great amount of detail.
Furthermore, film base isn't made of plastic. It's a semi-organic gelatin. Also, 1910 is well after photographic film was in common use.
seltaeb4Aug 21, 2010
I liked the one of Anastasia.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
More like Russian Empire in colour...
hipmanAug 21, 2010
Wow, thanks for the insight.Want a medal?.
throwdiniAug 21, 2010
More like Российская Империя in color...
ssomu007Aug 21, 2010
natural and classic. good quality picture.
lanspearyAug 21, 2010
Nice to capitalize off of current issues, however the National Library of Congress has the whole collection.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
shattersAug 21, 2010
Thanks, I thought this was especially interesting...
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
It details how they went from Prokudin-Gorskii's negatives to the final color images.
subductionAug 21, 2010
A selection of a particular thing created by the editor of a blog is not necessarily "blogspam."
I'm a little busy, I don't necessarily need to see the "whole collection." Having someone look through them and pick out a few that they think are the best is useful to me.
Perhaps rather than trying to be Mr. Internet Policeman you might just try posting "The entire collection is at the LOC" and offer the link.
lanspearyAug 21, 2010
It's unfortunate that you don't have time to look at all of the historically important photographs available. That you are projecting your time-based issues on others is perhaps a poor choice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
subductionAug 21, 2010
What?
What do you think the job "editor" is for?
Why do you think there are so many of them?
I don't have unlimited time to devote to everything, and if you do then my condolences on your unemployment. In my limited time I like to see the best or most important of what's available in any category, historical or otherwise. I'm happy to have other smart people help me with that.
Other people called "editors."
hipmanAug 21, 2010
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?st=grid&c=100&co=prok
You have time to search through all 2,606 images huh?.I'm glad you have so much time on your hands.
pivovyAug 21, 2010
I would have never seen those pictures if it wasn't for this "blogspam"
pfhayterAug 21, 2010
Hello again old friend.
Closed AccountAug 22, 2010
Have you come to kill me? I'm waiting for someone.
roguebladeAug 21, 2010
I like the part where the pictures were in color
crossmrAug 21, 2010
did you like the part where we all buried you?
dawnraid101Aug 22, 2010
did you like the part where we all buried you?
cfuseAug 21, 2010
1) The registration errors on the water are particularly trippy
2) Women sure have been dressing up as formless bags for a long time. Leigh Bowery would be particularly proud of that one.
crossmrAug 21, 2010
It's not a registration error. It comes from a long exposure. You can create the same effect from using a neutral density filter on your modern camera.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
psion01Aug 21, 2010
I use neutral density filters a lot and don't see this effect. It *is* a registration error. Go here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
The key is the portion that reads, "A single, narrow glass plate about 3 inches wide by 9 inches long was placed vertically into the camera by Prokudin-Gorskii . He then photographed the same scene three times in a fairly rapid sequence using a red filter, a green filter and a blue filter. "
That "fairly rapid sequence" might have been fast, but in the time needed to switch from the red, to the green, to the blue filters, the water will have moved enough so that it is now impossible to get the separate images to line up perfectly. Bang! A chromatic aberration caused by registration errors.
crossmrAug 22, 2010
You threw enough buzzwords in there you almost sounded smart. Chromatic aberration is used to refer to a color streak around dark objects set on a bright background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
Taking 3 pictures over time would mimic a neutral density filter.
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p02_00003991.jpg
vs
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4580202853_ef8ff90df7.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3411/4558821964_d41976c74a.jpg
It causes water to flatten out, just like it did in that picture.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mattharvey716Aug 22, 2010
@crossmr
you are talking about something completely different, thus making you appear foolish.
psion01Aug 22, 2010
Still haven't figured out how to play well with others, eh Crossmr? The first step is learning to be nice. The second step is learning how to communicate. That includes listening ... or in this case, reading. Cfuse was talking about this picture:
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p12_00003966.jpg
Don't you agree the "registration errors" he mentioned make the water look "particularly trippy"?
Now just so you know, a neutral density filter doesn't create the effect you think it does with water. A neutral density filter allows a photographer to use a larger aperture, which has a subtle effect on the way light falls across film or an imaging sensor. This gives some photos the appearance of richer colors with greater contrast ... I really like the look I get from my filters, especially in video. But that misty, streaky look you're seeing in water doesn't come from any filter at all ... it's the result of long exposure times. The same effect at night gives streaky head and tail lights on cars, and for daylight photos, the effect simply looks better if you use a filter.
crossmrAug 22, 2010
Yes. The result of long exposure time coming from using Neutral density filters to greatly reduce the amount of light getting into the camera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter
A neutral density filter has no effect on the richness of colors or contrast. It modifies all light equally unless you're using a graduated or split filter (often used with sunsets if you have a nice clean horizon to work with).
Now you might want to look at the first water picture I posted and note that it doesn't look anything like the rest of them. It has no trippy colors in it. The first picture looks much like a photo of any running water taken with a strong neutral density filter which smooths out the water over the long exposure. In bright daylight you cannot naturally slow down the shutter speed enough to create that kind of smoothing or effect without those filters. If you do, you'll significantly overexpose the image. The filter doesn't create the streaks, it allows you to use the camera to create them.
x2ardenAug 22, 2010
Why don't you read the whole article and understand how the images where made?
I think it's cool. You can use the "registration errors" to see what moved while the 3 images where taken. Check out which kids couldn't stay sill in #27. With that info you can get motion out if it. A little 3 frame movie from 100 years ago.
psion01Aug 22, 2010
"A neutral density filter has no effect on the richness of colors or contrast. "
I said a neutral density filter gives some photos "the *appearance* of richer colors with greater contrast". The word "appearance" was used as a qualifier. I was attempting to describe the effect in conversational terms.
"The first picture looks much like a photo of any running water taken with a strong neutral density filter which smooths out the water over the long exposure."
The neutral density filter does *not* smooth out the water. That is purely a function of a long exposure time. An NDF makes it easier to get pleasing results out of that long exposure in strong daylight, but you can get away without one on overcast days, at twilight and sunset, with slow exposure film (which is probably what these Russian photos used), and with lower aperture settings.
"In bright daylight you cannot naturally slow down the shutter speed enough to create that kind of smoothing or effect without those filters. If you do, you'll significantly overexpose the image. "
Yes you can ... depending on the speed of the film. Slow film takes longer to expose and usually gives clearer, less grainy images. As I said above, that's almost certainly what the Russian photographer used. Neutral density filters really didn't start to come into use until after WWII as film speeds rapidly started to improve.
I take it you now see what Cfuse was talking about?
crossmrAug 22, 2010
I never said the russian photographer was using a neutral density filter, I said the effect of combining 3 images in the first water image gave a similar appearance to what would happen if you used one.
As I've also repeatedly said, yes a neutral density filter doesn't smooth out the water itself, it just allows you to slow it down and do it in situations that might not otherwise allow it.
Jesus try to keep up.
Yes in the other images there are issues, but not chromatic abberation. This is ghosting caused by combining multiple images that is manifesting itself to look like that.
psion01Aug 22, 2010
"As I've also repeatedly said, yes a neutral density filter doesn't smooth out the water itself, it just allows you to slow it down and do it in situations that might not otherwise allow it."
Isn't at all supported by:
"It's not a registration error. It comes from a long exposure. You can create the same effect from using a neutral density filter on your modern camera. "
"It [a neutral density filter] causes water to flatten out, just like it did in that picture."
"Taking 3 pictures over time would mimic a neutral density filter."
"The first picture looks much like a photo of any running water taken with a strong neutral density filter which smooths out the water over the long exposure."
All of which you said in this very thread. Now you're claiming what you said means the very opposite of what you've written? How can *anyone* keep up with that? You're making up contradictory things as you go, apparently because you just can't accept the possibility that you were flat-out WRONG when you claimed to Cfuse that the trippy colors weren't a registration error, but the result of a neutral density filter. A double mistake on your part because you thought he was referring to a different image (a minor misunderstanding) AND you claimed an NDF could create the same effect as a long exposure. You really did say it -- let me repeat it for you once more: "It's not a registration error. It comes from a long exposure. You can create the same effect from using a neutral density filter on your modern camera." You said the effect comes FROM using a neutral density filter! I might grant you the slim possibility that maybe you meant to say the effect comes from a long exposure *while* using a neutral density filter, but that's technically wrong, too because you really don't need an NDF with a small enough aperture and slow enough film. Honestly, you come across as someone who tries to sound wikipedia-knowledgeable about something with no personal experience with the techniques or tools you're discussing.
Oh, and that's very much a chromatic aberration. The difference is that it's not introduced by a lens system in this case, but by a process that fringes objects that move, as X2arden points out. Chromatic aberration *usually* occurs when a lens system improperly breaks white light down and allows component wavelengths (colors) to spill around the edges of shapes. In this case, the separate images are monochromatic, but represent component colors and a time difference between each image allows moving objects to break down into component colors where they don't register (overlap) properly. It's a highly unusual case that isn't discussed often in photography because that's not how we make color photographs anymore.
Just think about the etymology of the words "chromatic" and "aberration" and you'll see why that's exactly the right phrase to describe the effect. Can you think of a better one? If you can, I'll happily use it and concede the point, but I don't think there's one. Chromatic motion blur? No, the individual elements don't really cause a blur. Three-color temporal instability? I'm just making these up, but I'm sure you know the right description for the chromatic aberration -- let's hear it, Wikiboy!
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
dugg for boston.com photos
barryigginsAug 21, 2010
In Russian Empire, Russian Orthodox Christianity put colorful hat on YOU!
thefuzzballAug 21, 2010
I'm really impressed by the pictures, but also the quality, which I really wouldn't have expected in 1910!
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
I wish there was a way to take snapshots now from the same spot to see what some of these towns (and people, if they're still alive) and such look like today. A lot has happened since then; they've gone through two forms of government and a massive economic collapse.
madbadgerAug 21, 2010
Part of the reason that quality looks so good is because these are digitally remastered. Of course, he took high quality negatives, which was half of the equation.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
joculatorAug 21, 2010
First lady is definitely Vampirshi....sucking the bloede
secrityAug 21, 2010
It wasn't color film, it used a process that employed three black and white negatives that were shot through three color filters. There are no color dyes used in the negatives, and the silver based image is very stable. If these were actual color negatives that were almost 100 years old, the color dyes in the negative would probably be so faded as to be useless to produce a good color print.
The biggest threats to the fidelity of these photographs would be improper fixing and washing, and the stability of the negatives' substrate. It appears that the fixing and washing were adequate, and I assume that these negatives were on glass plates, which are very stable -- although they can be broken.
subductionAug 21, 2010
Give me your lunch money.
hipmanAug 21, 2010
Before.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/prokc.21676/?co=prok
After.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsc.04434/?co=prok
Just a "bit" of processing it seems.
chriskzooAug 21, 2010
Original Pimp http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p06_00020154.jpg
sirbetaAug 21, 2010
I've seen these pictures before. The method he used to create them was truly ingenious for the day.
aesthetigeekAug 21, 2010
There used to be a book of these photos. I have it. But it's out of print now. The book includes a full-color portrait of Leo Tolstoy.
axiondgpAug 21, 2010
Ah, yes, the weekly 100-year-old Russian photographs.
brainrazerAug 22, 2010
These photos are amazing, but I agree, I'm reminded of their existence every few days. Maybe they're my "totem" ala Inception. Yes, I just watched it.
mawrizAug 22, 2010
In Soviet Russia, the world was not black and white before the 1950's.
mnauAug 22, 2010
Photos are from 1909-1910, my history is little dusty, but I believe that Soviet Russia started in 1917, before that, Imperial Russia was proper name.
atarioAug 22, 2010
Some things are so cool, no amount of repeats will make me stop digging them.
lukas1051Aug 21, 2010
I'm always fascinated by old, high resolution colour photos. Most historic photos are grainy black and white photographs, you can't really get a full idea of what it was like. It's like someone has taken today's technology and travelled back 100 years in time. Amazing.
ynotvstonyAug 21, 2010
Check out picture 14.. It must have been captured in motion so it has blue on the sides.
Now the incredible is that if you have your old 3D red blue glasses, put it on and you will have one century old anaglyph 3D!
It is not so obvious but still noticeable!
Awesome pictures.. I had no idea they existed!
jacoboAug 22, 2010
http://i.imgur.com/V3BBV.gif (animated)
x2ardenAug 22, 2010
It's just where the waves on the water and the top of his pole moved while he was taking each of the three picture. But you could make a 3 frame movie out of it.Check out the kids who wouldn't stay still in #27.
eslamicolt3Aug 21, 2010
assh**es Uzbekistan
fullmetalninAug 21, 2010
Did they know how to smile 100 years ago?
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
Yes, but it wasn't customary to smile in posed pictures until shutter speed increased in the 30s and 40s- nobody could hold the expression long enough. I've got old family pictures from the 1910s and 1920s of my great grandparents and great-great grandparents in western Kentucky, and nobody is smiling in them either.
joegwAug 22, 2010
Not in russia
Closed AccountAug 22, 2010
Or be fat?
mossman85Aug 22, 2010
Try living in those days and tell me if you ever smile.
MicealOcorraAug 21, 2010
These were absolutely amazing to see. Though i laughed at the one with the sheppard boy because he looks like he has a big white mustache.
tconnect80Aug 21, 2010
Looks kind of like Russia now...
whiteskyAug 21, 2010
This is how you display multiple pictures. None of that different page bs
limeparrotAug 22, 2010
The boston.com photo collections are also extremely epic, every time.
mawrizAug 22, 2010
If you run for Congress I will vote for you.
theericevansAug 21, 2010
In Imperial Russia, you look through camera to take picture of person in government. In Soviet Russia, person in government look through camera to take picture of YOU!!! Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
These jokes stopped being funny in 1985.
jjjx03Aug 21, 2010
In Soviet Russia 1991 these jokes are still funny today!
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
In Soviet Russia, joke stops you being funny in 1991!
0260Aug 22, 2010
in 1991 soviet russia was no more.
evilkrustydollAug 21, 2010
This is what, the 5th time these photos has been on digg's frontpage? Just f**king bookmark it.
fungowskiAug 21, 2010
Yoof, those women! Remember this, friends, next time you're browsing the Russian brides site. They are hot when they're 20 but that wall comes hard and fast.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Aug 21, 2010
Most of the women in these pictures are from the Asian outskirts of the Russian Empire. The European women from "Great Russia" are totally different ethnically.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
Photo 12, front row, far right: Looks like a man in drag.
dralantharpAug 21, 2010
The google maps links really made this an amazing article. The cathedral in Kyn has gone downhill in the last 100 years.
vladamirAug 21, 2010
Photo 32, Orlando Bloom and Bride, circa 1910.
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p28_00003945.jpg
eh?
kornstalxAug 21, 2010
"and my sword!"
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
"and my bow"
/fixed it.
kornstalxAug 21, 2010
The chap in the photo is brandishing a sword, so I said that instead.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
...guess I need to watch it again. He uses a bow and arrow in the rest of the movie, so I must have forgotten. Sorry Kornstalx.
kornstalxAug 21, 2010
^^ dood not the movie, in the PICTURE.
chiwawaAug 22, 2010
you guys should make a comic duo
novadeezAug 22, 2010
My god...what has been seen, cannot be unseen!
mawrizAug 22, 2010
...and my bow!
dramaqueenmamaAug 21, 2010
They are all so wonderful that it is hard to believe that all those people are now gone. They look like they were just taken yesterday
stuntaneousAug 22, 2010
whenever i watch old b/w movies or see photos like this i instantly think of the time that's passed, how usually these people are long since gone. both kinda sad and eerily intriguing..
rowlodgeAug 21, 2010
almost like "national geographic" took these yesterday.
joejitsuAug 21, 2010
There were all purged by the Soviets.
goldinAug 21, 2010
Cool photos. No doubt these images have been doctored quite a bit to remove graininess and other impurities. I am certain they have also been color-adjusted, some of the colors are just not quite right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
x2ardenAug 22, 2010
Read the article and see how they where made. That's why it is so cool.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
OH MAN! They look like we do!
madbadgerAug 21, 2010
Most people are astounded that photos taken a century ago could look so good. No doubt he was a genius of his time, but the photos you're seeing on your computer screen have been digitally remastered. They are not the actual color prints from 100 years ago (in fact, there were no color prints back then. He could only see them in color by using 3 light projectors). Experts used modern digital processing to bring these negatives to life. In a way, it's like working with RAW files.
Read the details here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
record200Aug 21, 2010
What I like about Russia is that there are so different people, in color, in beliefs, in traditions. I hope Russia will keep up that overwhelming diversity of cultures.
x2ardenAug 22, 2010
Most of these pictures where taken not in Russia but territories captures by the Russian Empire. After the break up of the Soviet Union. They are back to their own separate countries now.
record200Aug 22, 2010
Well, History has lasted so long, some were captured, some (like Georgia) asked Russia to come to help, and willingly entered the Russian Empire.
But. Russians never forced their religion or culture onto the nations they ruled. The nations remained themselves under the Russian Empire.
The pictures illustrate that fact well, I think.
spartexAug 21, 2010
apparently it never rained in russia 1910-1912
digg1990Aug 21, 2010
Amazing... I also enjoyed looking at those pictures of smalltown America from the '30s and '40s in color that were posted here not long ago.
slothsoupAug 21, 2010
I lived there among these people because I am immortal.
randyka87Aug 22, 2010
some of these pictures are in 3D!!!!!!!!
victorysabreAug 22, 2010
I saw this about 4 years ago, and I'm still amazed by these pictures. It really brings history to light, and makes it real. The person who came up with this method was a genius.
Closed AccountAug 22, 2010
Ah, back in the days when no one smiled.
x2ardenAug 22, 2010
We all learned the fake smile.
shiftclickAug 22, 2010
Number 32: That ladies hands are TWICE the size of her husbands! Wow!
mstachiwAug 22, 2010
...before happiness was an emotion.
shibbiezAug 22, 2010
Something's a bit off about these pictures they inject the color into..
imacumpewterAug 22, 2010
everyone in those pictures is dead now :(
blackoculusAug 22, 2010
Those children on the grass might still be alive...although they'd all be over a hundred now.