I’m not complaining, I just assumed the original was in colour, because it was fucking 1992.
I assumed someone at some point did this deliberately to make it seem like another time, the way a lot of civil rights era photos (from way fuckin earlier than the 90s) were presented in black and white rather than the ORIGINAL colour.
Coloured ink is expensive until much recently. Newspapers in richer countries have only gradually started to printed more in colour from late 1980s onwards. But in poorer countries, only the more serious newspapers who charges higher for their papers, could afford to print in colour, while the tabloids printed in black and white until the 2000s.
That’s why the complaint that “they intentionally print and post pictures in black and white, even though colour is available long ago, is so that people would think the events are old and feel detached” is silly and a first world problem for me. Printing in black and white was simply cheaper and also technically easier than printing in colour. Not to mention most photographers before the 1980s feel that taking photos in black and white is far classier and superior, in their minds.
I mean I’m happy to say I’m mistaken, but is is ALSO the case that images captured from the civil rights era in full colour have been routinely reprinted in textbooks, articles, histories etc in a deliberate fashion
I’m not complaining, I just assumed the original was in colour, because it was fucking 1992.
I assumed someone at some point did this deliberately to make it seem like another time, the way a lot of civil rights era photos (from way fuckin earlier than the 90s) were presented in black and white rather than the ORIGINAL colour.
Coloured ink is expensive until much recently. Newspapers in richer countries have only gradually started to printed more in colour from late 1980s onwards. But in poorer countries, only the more serious newspapers who charges higher for their papers, could afford to print in colour, while the tabloids printed in black and white until the 2000s.
That’s why the complaint that “they intentionally print and post pictures in black and white, even though colour is available long ago, is so that people would think the events are old and feel detached” is silly and a first world problem for me. Printing in black and white was simply cheaper and also technically easier than printing in colour. Not to mention most photographers before the 1980s feel that taking photos in black and white is far classier and superior, in their minds.
I mean I’m happy to say I’m mistaken, but is is ALSO the case that images captured from the civil rights era in full colour have been routinely reprinted in textbooks, articles, histories etc in a deliberate fashion