Quote:
Originally Posted by SPORTSMEM817
If you know my stuff from Baseball-Birthdays, you know I have this aversion to colorizing something that someone else has already colorized
How would someone know if something was already colorized? The process is long enough without scouring sites to see if someone had colorized a player before? My reason for posting is never to show up or compete with another member. There are many people who colorize better than me. my only reason to do it is to share them with others. I basically use them for 3x5 cards that I have autographed. I take them and cut the graph to fit inside the photo. If I inadvertently post a photo colorized that someone else has done in the past I am not intentionally doing it. Good luck to everyone and happy posting.
|
Please don't take that remark of mine as a knock on anyone else or as a "rule" others should follow. It's a personal hang-up of mine. It's not that it's "showing up" or "competing". It's more about the fact that colorizing is (for me, anyway) very time consuming. Using Walt Streuli as an example, I know of at least 3 separate colorizations of the crisp B&W. Does the world need a fourth? Would doing a fourth suggest to others that I think the other three were no good (which is not
my thinking)? Why would I invest the time on an image that's already been done? OTOH, I do my tribute cards and it doesn't feel right to me to use someone else's work, even credited. I did that one year and I look back and I feel a tad disappointed at those (it's my set for my head, but its not my work, so it just
feels wrong). What's more, when I do colorize something that someone else has colorized, it ends up looking very much the same in spite of our different approaches. A recent example of that for me was Tom Sturdivant as a Met. There's really only that one good B&W of him and it's been colorized several times. In the end, mine looks very much like everyone else's (like ort's, certainly). That's not inherently a bad thing (I'd be flattered, frankly, if someone thought my work looked like ort's). But it's for my set for my head, so I wanted my work. OTOH, there's nothing different enough about it to warrant posting it. Or that's how I feel about it, anyway.
As to how one would know, it's mostly about the people here, in this fairly tight-knit community. I study the colorizations of John and David and Krantz and ortforshort and you and the others. It helps me to be better, myself. But it also makes me aware of what's been done. Also, my colorizations are almost exclusively in two categories--1) Mets and Pilots and 2) the recently deceased. Before I start one, I always run a site search and a google search. That's certainly not definitive, but its definitive enough for my purposes. It's, in a way, similar to why, before posting any image here (colorized or not), I'll run a site search and, if its previously been posted, I'd rather link to the earlier post than post it again.
I'm just an odd duck. I tend to "show my work", I almost always point out the things I think I did wrong, and I'm always willing to drop a tip to others (sometimes unsolicited, for which I apologize--for past and future infractions). And I don't mind tips or constructive criticism from others, either. While I'm on that subject, thank you for the white balance tip. I've been using GIMP for years and never knew about that and its a tremendous shortcut.
Not wanting to colorize that which has already been colorized is just one of my quirks. I hope no one takes it as a criticism of anyone other than myself.