The images include portraits of Louise Brooks who popularized the bobbed haircut and the stunning Anna May Wong who is considered to be the first Chinese-American movie star.
Doris McMahon - ‘Hips, Hips, Hooray’ - 1934 http://www.elbrendel.com
Color photography - both motion picture film and still photography - has had a long and fascinating history. And some of the most important technical advancements happened during the 1930s. Though Hollywood had been toying with various versions of Technicolor motion picture film for almost twenty years, there really wasn't much in the way of color portraiture until the middle of the Thirties. And at least at first, most of it seems to have been produced for use on magazine covers and in advertisements. If I understand correctly, in the early and mid-Thirties most color photographs were taken using the Carbro process, Kodachrome only becoming commercially available in 1938. (In fact, I "understand" just about nothing of the history or technology of color photography, so I'll have to leave it at that one spare sentence.) Though black and white studio portraits remained the norm well into the Sixties, after the early Forties color portraiture would become quite common in Hollywood. The images I've shared here are examples of that early, transitional period. This portrait of Dietrich is an example of something I've encountered more frequently in vintage Hollywood color photographs than in black and white images of the same period: they're often reversed. This seems to be the most frequently seen version of the shot, but I believe it to be reversed. If for no other reason than that her hats always leaned the other way. But both orientations were printed and she happily signed both versions. Another portrait from the same sitting, but printed, I believe, in the correct orientation. (And while the cover reads "Natural Color Photo", there's obviously nothing at all "natural" about the heavily retouched final image.) When speaking of color portraiture from the golden age of Hollywood, one has to bring up the ugly topic of "colorization." The 1970s and '80s saw a wave of colorizing classic black and white films, an appalling development which brought on an immediate and righteous outcry against it. The arguments were aesthetic - the technology was crude, the resulting images looked really bad; the original design of the films was calculated for black and white and looked wrong with color overlaid - and ethical - no one has the right to make such sweeping "improvements" to someone else's work of art; it's like drawing eyebrows on the Mona Lisa. But now, with great advances in the technology, it's all started again. I haven't seen so much of a renewed attack on classic film, but one more directed at archival documentary footage. The argument made for these alterations is that it makes the old images more accessible to a modern audience; "it brings the past to life!" (Apparently, we modern folks possess a rather limited ability to imagine.) But much more frequently, because the software is now so readily available, it's still photography - both historical documents and Hollywood portraits - that has come under attack. Depending on the skills of the person wielding the software, the results vary from the very bad to the very adept. And I have more of an issue with the latter than the former; if the alteration has been done very skillfully, the viewer probably won't even know they're being lied to. Sites like Pinterest are awash with "authentic vintage color photographs" that are nothing of the sort. The internet is a great minefield of misinformation/disinformation, and images that are not what they seem - whether their misidentification is due to carelessness or to deliberate deception - do much more damage than we realize. In a world that is already shockingly dumb, they just make us all that much dumber. I didn't crop this portrait of Freddie Bartholomew as the layers of color separation can be seen at the edges. Considering the above paragraphs, my tirade against vile colorization, I must make assurances that I've tried - very - hard to only share photographs that I know to have been genuinely, originally shot in color. Including those where the color was "genuinely, originally" very much retouched, in the same way black and white studio portraits were always retouched at the time. But if I've been duped by any clever imposters, I sincerely hope someone will alert me to the fact. This portrait of Ginger Rogers looks to be another example of a reversed image being printed - and signed anyway. I'm fairly certain that this is the actual orientation of the photograph. * Since I've found it impossible to give attribution to all of the images here or definitively determine the dates they were taken, I'm resorting to a crude list. The photographers here include: James N. Doolittle, Paul Hesse, George Hurrell, Nickolas Muray, Harry Warnecke, Clarence Sinclair Bull, Anton Bruehl, Scotty Welbourne, Herbert Dorfman, Jack Shallit & Barker Davis, and (probably) others.
Color photography - both motion picture film and still photography - has had a long and fascinating history. And some of the most important technical advancements happened during the 1930s. Though Hollywood had been toying with various versions of Technicolor motion picture film for almost twenty years, there really wasn't much in the way of color portraiture until the middle of the Thirties. And at least at first, most of it seems to have been produced for use on magazine covers and in advertisements. If I understand correctly, in the early and mid-Thirties most color photographs were taken using the Carbro process, Kodachrome only becoming commercially available in 1938. (In fact, I "understand" just about nothing of the history or technology of color photography, so I'll have to leave it at that one spare sentence.) Though black and white studio portraits remained the norm well into the Sixties, after the early Forties color portraiture would become quite common in Hollywood. The images I've shared here are examples of that early, transitional period. This portrait of Dietrich is an example of something I've encountered more frequently in vintage Hollywood color photographs than in black and white images of the same period: they're often reversed. This seems to be the most frequently seen version of the shot, but I believe it to be reversed. If for no other reason than that her hats always leaned the other way. But both orientations were printed and she happily signed both versions. Another portrait from the same sitting, but printed, I believe, in the correct orientation. (And while the cover reads "Natural Color Photo", there's obviously nothing at all "natural" about the heavily retouched final image.) When speaking of color portraiture from the golden age of Hollywood, one has to bring up the ugly topic of "colorization." The 1970s and '80s saw a wave of colorizing classic black and white films, an appalling development which brought on an immediate and righteous outcry against it. The arguments were aesthetic - the technology was crude, the resulting images looked really bad; the original design of the films was calculated for black and white and looked wrong with color overlaid - and ethical - no one has the right to make such sweeping "improvements" to someone else's work of art; it's like drawing eyebrows on the Mona Lisa. But now, with great advances in the technology, it's all started again. I haven't seen so much of a renewed attack on classic film, but one more directed at archival documentary footage. The argument made for these alterations is that it makes the old images more accessible to a modern audience; "it brings the past to life!" (Apparently, we modern folks possess a rather limited ability to imagine.) But much more frequently, because the software is now so readily available, it's still photography - both historical documents and Hollywood portraits - that has come under attack. Depending on the skills of the person wielding the software, the results vary from the very bad to the very adept. And I have more of an issue with the latter than the former; if the alteration has been done very skillfully, the viewer probably won't even know they're being lied to. Sites like Pinterest are awash with "authentic vintage color photographs" that are nothing of the sort. The internet is a great minefield of misinformation/disinformation, and images that are not what they seem - whether their misidentification is due to carelessness or to deliberate deception - do much more damage than we realize. In a world that is already shockingly dumb, they just make us all that much dumber. I didn't crop this portrait of Freddie Bartholomew as the layers of color separation can be seen at the edges. Considering the above paragraphs, my tirade against vile colorization, I must make assurances that I've tried - very - hard to only share photographs that I know to have been genuinely, originally shot in color. Including those where the color was "genuinely, originally" very much retouched, in the same way black and white studio portraits were always retouched at the time. But if I've been duped by any clever imposters, I sincerely hope someone will alert me to the fact. This portrait of Ginger Rogers looks to be another example of a reversed image being printed - and signed anyway. I'm fairly certain that this is the actual orientation of the photograph. * Since I've found it impossible to give attribution to all of the images here or definitively determine the dates they were taken, I'm resorting to a crude list. The photographers here include: James N. Doolittle, Paul Hesse, George Hurrell, Nickolas Muray, Harry Warnecke, Clarence Sinclair Bull, Anton Bruehl, Scotty Welbourne, Herbert Dorfman, Jack Shallit & Barker Davis, and (probably) others.
Nichelle Gainour, a journalist who blogs and writes for various online and offline publications, owns a tumblr called Vintage Black Glamour that has progressed into a book, launching in June.
The images include portraits of Louise Brooks who popularized the bobbed haircut and the stunning Anna May Wong who is considered to be the first Chinese-American movie star.
Edward Jean Steichen (March 27, 1879 – March 25, 1973) was an American photographer, painter, and art gallery and museum curator. He was the most frequently featured photographer in Alfred Stieglitz' groundbreaking magazine Camera Work during its run from 1903 to 1917. Steichen also contributed the logo design and a custom typeface to the magazine. In partnership with Stieglitz, Steichen opened the "Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession", which was eventually known as 291, after its address. This gallery presented among the first American exhibitions of (among others) Henri Matisse, Auguste Rodin, Paul Cézanne, Pablo Picasso, and Constantin Brâncuşi. Steichen's photos of gowns designed by couturier Paul Poiret in the magazine Art et Décoration in 1911 are regarded as the first modern fashion photographs ever published. Serving in the US Army in World War I (and the US Navy in the Second World War), he commanded significant units contributing to military photography. He was a photographer for the Condé Nast magazines Vogue and Vanity Fair from 1923–1938, and concurrently worked for many advertising agencies including J. Walter Thompson. During these years Steichen was regarded as the best known and highest paid photographer in the world. Steichen directed the war documentary The Fighting Lady, which won the 1945 Academy Award for Best Documentary. After World War II he was Director of the Department of Photography at New York's Museum of Modern Art until 1962. While at MoMA, in 1955 he curated and assembled the exhibit The Family of Man. The exhibit eventually traveled to sixty-nine countries, was seen by nine million people, and sold two and a half million copies of a companion book. In 1962, Steichen hired John Szarkowski to be his successor at the Museum of Modern Art. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Steichen
Hazel Forbes, Ziegfeld girl & Miss United States, by Alfred Cheney Johnston - 1928 - vintage photo - SKU 0216 Vintage photographs in the public domain, digitally restored preserving the essence of the original photograph. You can select the size of the print on the menu below the price. You can also choose between black and white or sepia tone, if not indicate anything, will be done in black and white. The size of the image is adjusted in proportion to the size of print, if you want to see if the print size you choose is affected by cuts in the picture, ask us in the notes to seller, a test image to see how it would be printing ratio. The impression is made with the highest quality standards with Epson Ultrachrome pigment inks, guaranteed highly durable prints, which are tested and guaranteed not to fade for at least 100+ years. The papers used is Epson Photo Paper Luster 260 gr. The photos have a margin around variable-size, so they can be manipulated and framed. The colors you see on your monitor may differ slightly depending on the setting. For printing we use ICC profiles to ensure high accuracy of color. All prints are wrapped in bubble wrap inside a cardboard postal tube or a cardboard depending on the size for better protection during shipping. For international shipments may I have custom charges, depending on the country, which will be paid by the buyer. You can mail inquiries to: paulrommer19 [!at] outlook.com Copyright & Right to reproduce does not transfer with sale of artwork. © Paulrommer SLU 2014
Quentin Tarantino is probably one of the most controversial filmmakers today. Not only do people rant about his excessive use
Explore robin.clark's 7679 photos on Flickr!
You have read about the extraordinary donut portraits by Candice CMC on social media world-wide and we are excited and proud to represent her work. This large one of a kind photo arrangement on 100% rag paper by Candice CMC measures 43x35". Framed size is approx. 46x38". The Photographic arrangements of Candice CMC receive an immediate response on the part of the viewer. The art consists of 616 extremely sharp images of donuts, Candice CMC uses the the donuts as her palate, the same as if she was creating the portrait with oil paints. Candice first photographs the donuts and then studies the characteristics of each so that she can arrange them according to their tones, colors, values and intensity to create the iconic portrait. She chooses the correct placement of just the right donut for each area of the artwork. The art was created to appear as a pop art image of hundreds of random donuts. The WOW factor comes when you go to look at the artwork through your phone camera and see the donuts small and the very realistic portrait appears. Collectors are amazed by this. At the gallery, collectors come in and see Candice CMC's donuts and say, we love donuts and then we tell them to take a picture of it with their phone, they hold up their phone and we immediately hear Oh Wow! By photographing hundreds of enticing donuts in varying flavors and colors and using them as her palette, she has created iconic portraits of Marilyn Monroe, Einstein, Willy Wonka, Superman, Wonder Woman, Alfred E. Neuman, Van Gogh, Joker and Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, among others. By composing these portraits, Candice is forging a unique style of photography and creating unique, one of a kind, works of art. Candice CMC's work has been featured at prestigious galleries and Art Fairs in Miami, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas and Santa Fe as well as well as many distinguished corporate and private collections worldwide. This is a unique one of a kind work of art and is not an edition. It is signed by the artist on the front in the lower right.
Raven Wilkinson, one of the first Black/African American ballerinas to join a major ballet company (see earlier post) via Andros on Ballet: When Raven Wilkinson was about five years old, her mother...
These color publicity photos and behind the scene shots from the iconic black & white TV series will blow your mind.
Explore Gatochy's 20853 photos on Flickr!
Ethel Waters.
On her 90th birthday, look back at some of the British actor’s great roles in the West End, on Broadway and in film and TV
"Don't Forget To Be Awesome"
Rose McClendon was a renowned black dramatic actress of the 1920s and 1930s. Her acting career did not begin until she was in her thirties. McClendon was born in Greenville, South Carolina 1884 to Sandy and Lena Scott. The family migrated to New York City around 1890. At a young age, McClendon became interested in acting while attending the ...
