To Colorize, or Not to Colorize?

Should we colorize historic images?

(Cue ominous music.)

Is it a philosophical debate? A marketing question? A Photoshop issue?

All of the above. And the answer isn’t simple, even when you think you found the obvious compromise.

The Pros:
Colorizing an old b-and-w image makes the past feel like the present. It’s shockingly effective. A colorized image appears less like an archival object and more like a person. Color can also help us see details more clearly. Most importantly, it helps digital-native audiences simply ... see.

But.

The Cons:
Colorizing is guessing, unless we have 100% documentary proof, and we never do. When we add color to historical evidence, we transform documents into illustrations, filled with false certainty. We also alter the photographer's original artistic tones.

By the way, what’s that obvious compromise I mentioned earlier? Show both versions side by side, or morph one into the other in a video.

Yes, that can work. But only sometimes, when the stakes are low. And it isn’t a silver bullet. Sometimes you just shouldn’t colorize.

Here’s the thing:

Colorizing isn’t about appearances. It’s about truth. Are you presenting evidence? Or are you inviting human empathy?

The answer will tell you whether you should colorize at all.

Warmly,
Jonathan

- - - - - - - - - - - -

MtM Word of the Day:
Colorization. Adding reconstructed color to a black-and-white historic image. It is an interpretive augmentation, ideally based on detailed research, to help modern audiences connect with historical evidence. Sometimes, colorizing is not advisable.

NEW! The MtM Glossary of Museum Exhibitions (BETA)