Quote:
Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan
I would certainly echo the merits of this query and somebody spending time on such a request when there a plethora of other Major Leaguers for whom we do not have colorized images.
I would also query the request on two other grounds.
Firstly one could quite clearly make a distinction of baseball eras into two sections in terms of color, an era where color image reproduction was generally unavailable and a second era when it was. To my mind it is far more justifiable to make requests to colorize images from the first era as we do not have already a host of color images in specific uniforms from that first era unlike the second.
Secondly in an era where the truth is under assault from what is real and what is fake I would like to make the point that a colorization of a real image to make it come to life in the true color of that team's uniform should take priority over an image that has been photo shopped. I can see a case being made to photo shop an image from a more distant time period where an abundance of research has failed to unveil a true image but often I have seen requests for images to be photo shopped when if the requester took the time to undertake some research they would readily find a 'true and real' image that could be utilised.
|
In defense of Lumpkin (although this request more likely belongs in either the
random colorization or
general discussion thread), I would submit that, while there may be two eras of color availability, there are at least three eras of image availability. And there are plenty of players in that middle era for whom there are no available images in a uniform they wore professionally--color or B&W. If not for Topps doing their special Pilots inserts this year, I would STILL have no idea what Ron Kotick looked like. And, yes, that was something that was kind of important to me.
Second, people in this community are coming from different places for different reasons and have different interests. Most of them are very appreciative and try to contribute when they can. I, for one, have fairly close to zero interest in players from the turn of the century. But I would never criticize those for whom that is their passion simply because it isn't mine.You want to colorize an image from 1912? Be my guest. I'll even "thank" the post if its done well and it's of a size I could (under a set of circumstances that will never exist) use some day. But, honestly, players from that era--be they colorized or B&W--don't interest me in the least (some exceptions; I'm enjoying Krantz' Federal League players bigly). I can't relate. Even the 40s are ancient and nearly irrelevant to me. But I recognize that that's just me.
Many people who come here are "team" guys. I'm one. I'm a Mets fan. One of my main interests in coming here is acquiring images for the purpose of creating a custom for as many of those who were a part of Mets history as I can do before I die. My customs are cheaply done, just for my own head, and not distributed anywhere or to others. Much of the other stuff I do--including colorizing non-Mets--is primarily about honing skills to make better Mets customs. I especially want to make customs for those who few realize were part of the Mets story. So a guy like Daniel Bard, a successful major league reliever not all that long ago who finished out his career with one disaster of a game in the Mets' low minors and for whom there are no available images in the blue and orange...damn straight I'm gonna photoshop the guy to be able to tell his story (even if I'm only telling it to myself); he's part of my team's story. Again, that's me.
Third, Lumpkin made a "request". He isn't holding a gun to anyone's head. No one has to volunteer their time to fulfill his request. That's their choice. Lots of people make lots of requests, here. Some are so farcical that they're intriguing. I won't be transforming Mr. Stallard...certainly not from that watermarked image...but I don't question Lumpkin's right to ask or someone else's right to do it. I would, though, suggest that a transformation of a Stallard Mets image to Royals would be much easier for anyone so inclined (they're both blue, after all).
As for the real vs. fake thing, I think that's a can of worms we'd do well not to open, here....for soooo many reasons. But, avoiding the obvious, let me just point out that, when you colorize a B&W image, it is a "fake" by definition. Because the image was not color to begin with and that is not what the original photographer intended. And Lord knows you've posted that photoshopped Lazorko as a Tiger image a little too often to be so dismissive of "fake". I agree that some others make an insufficient search at the outset. I would at least appreciate if they'd use the site search. But I doubt you're going to find an image of a lot of expansion NRIs from the 60s, unless they show up in Topps' Vault. And, from what I've seen, Lumpkin makes a greater attempt to find images before asking than many, here.
Finally, you have every right to determine what YOUR priority is. You do not have the right to decide what anyone else's priority should be. The site administrator/host has that right. You and I do not.