[PRCo] Re: Tylerdale

[Jim Holland]

> On 29 Dec 2006 at 22:29, Fred Schneider wrote:
>
>> I truly suspect that the colors in that picture are as close as 
>> you're going to get to realism and that the red and cream streetcar 
>> is the only object on a gray day that had any color other than 
>> various intensities of gray.
>

>> Donald Galt wrote:
>>
>
> Seriously, though, I don't think we are looking at a slide. Rather, at 
> a low-resolution 120 print that has been touched up - quite expertly! 
> - by a colourist.

.
The Color one  I-S  a slide and the B&W is a print  --  both from 
Scholes Photos as Ed thought  --  doesn't mean Scholes took them.
.
.

> It looks so very much like some of the better of the b&w pictures that 
> I used to take as a child. The tinges of in the snow look to be done 
> by a human hand, and the tinting isn't as crisp as the photo itself. 
> The yellowish cast to the entire picture could possibly come from the 
> camera but could just as likely be due to a subtle wash. 1707 may well 
> be the only vivid object in the photo. Not that vivid, though, not in 
> this unpromising light.

.
Scanning irregularities from older scanners  --  slide is  Obviously a 
copy  --  much to be washed out.
.
.

> I can't prove it - just my hunch. As I said, if a tint job, a skilful one.
>
> The colour quality available to the well-heeled photographer as long 
> ago as 6 decades is seen in the Washington Interurban photos in Bill 
> Volkmer's Pittsburgh Area book. A couple of them claim to date from 
> 1944. In any case, the Washington city pictures are obviously no later 
> than their stated 1952-3. Oh, if only we had a few more like them! Or 
> a few dozen more.
>
> Don Galt

.
Again  --  quick scan, older scanner, color copy slide.