About 20 years ago Turner Entertainment unveiled a restoration of a 1935 adaptation of a Thackery novel based on "Vanity Fair". The movie was one of the very earliest color movies made for general release, if not the first. The restoration was remarkable and newsworthy. Turner entertainment went on to restore several other old color films, then it colorized black-and-white films in their library. Artistically that is where they stepped over the line. B&W film varied widely in quality, and good art direction utilized the light and shadow as well as film texture that certainly contributed to making movies like "Casablanca" the classic it is. (In fact, studios had all kinds of special clothing and even flags that were sewed in certain shades of gray so they would look better in b&w films) Many film buffs complained loudly when b&w classics were colorized by Turner entertainment, and eventually they quit doing it. Artistically, it was distracting, and frankly, the technology of the time missed the mark somewhat as the color was not quite right. Movie buffs often comment about the "rainsilver" texture of late 1940s film noir, and rightly argue that the look that defined an entire genre could not be duplicated on color film.
Colorizing old railroad photos? I admit I love looking at them, and surprises me on how realistic they look. However, I am looking a wonderful portrait of 315 in strong morning light, in front of the Montrose engine house. It was taken by John Maxwell with a reflex camera in marvelous black and white. Should photos be colorized ? Sure, they are fun to look at. Should they be allowed in the historical record? Absolutely not.
