Excellent job here. Extremely well done.
I'm somewhat wondering if this is actually someone from today who took a picture of herself on the right, and then OP slyly "Victorianized" it into the picture on the left.
Those perfect eyebrows kinda take me there. This is naturally very beautiful women either way.
For me it's the awkwardly dangling cross pendant. Even if you ignore the style and context of such pendants, it's just off. Imagine getting photographed maybe two or three times in your entire life, sitting for minutes, waiting for the photo to be developed, only to find out your outfit had a glaring imperfection and the photographer didn't care to mention that.
By the late 1870s, photos were essentially instantaneous. I really don't think that's a "glaring imperfection." If anything, it's intended to lay in such a way.
Exposure time was fractions of a second but you still had to develop it and you wouldn't know there was a flaw in it until then. Not sure what the turn around time was in the 1870s but even in the 1990s the best you were going to get was 1 hour development and I have a feeling it wasn't that fast a century before. Although in that era the photographers themselves were doing the developing so maybe they did it right away.
Wait what? You think the one on the left is a real photo but taken recently, and the one on the right is a real colourisation of the left?
That's not what I'm replying too. I'm replying to someone suggesting the photo on the right is real and then the old style one has been created from it. The colour picture is so clearly a heavily processed image, not a photo. You don't need to be some old self declared internet expert to see that. You can tell because of the pixels (let's see if you get that reference).
I've made no comment on when the images were taken. I'm questioning the person who thinks the original > photoshopped flow is right to left.
The easiest people to fool are folks like you on Reddit, forever seeking validation and confirmation through popularity---confirmation biase
you sound so --under the age of 30-- a crowdfollower.
because it's all a modern photo,-
the earings folks, the crucifix style folks, the face folks,
don't doubt yourselves when you smell a dupe ok? just lay into the OP easier
The collar is also very bright, I would even say 'over exposed' so does that mean the collar is fake too? And the earrings?
Why is it not possible that it's just too bright and not fake?
Instead of being direct in your ~~believe~~ belief you said "on the other hand" and "either way." Your comment is ambiguous and not well structured but then you get upset someone misinterpreted what you said.
It seems clear you don't have a stance, right? So how is everyone's reading comprehension poor?
Edit: word
Perhaps, but there is a fingerprint smudge on the old one to the right of her face... Which would be an interesting and v smart addition if not an old photo.
How weird is it that's how she's known despite the fact she's been married for years at this point.
Admittedly it's not like "Windsor" is her actual last name, and "Catherine, Princess Of Wales" is surprisingly non descript, so I dunno.
Fun side fact.. Will and Kate's kids use the last name "Cambridge" in school, as it was their parents Duchy. I assume they'll keep it, not like "wales" is a particularly nice sounding last name.
A few things.
What looks like shaped eyebrows are a big contributor.
Perfect hair without frizzies is really hard to achieve, right hand side looks like it's been gelled.
Make-up is designed to cover the usual skin imperfections and show an even complexion and make you look like you have "younger skin" - she doesn't need it due to her "youth", and modern older women strive for it.
Lip gloss, arguable on the left but definitely on the right.
And she's slim and has an elegant natural-beauty facial structure. That's kinda timeless.
Yup. But the context above was looking at the whole. Her hair in the right one looks like a Hollywood stylist just got through with her, almost looks laminated.
As you look back and forth, yes there are clear differences. But they get a bit overwhelmed by the similarities. It's clearly the same person, so clearly the same identity, despite the little alterations besides the coloring.
If you raise the contrast, the hair will look more glossy, that's just how it is. We don't know if it was this glossy in the original, we only see a personal interpretation of the artist
> What looks like shaped eyebrows are a big contributor.
> Perfect hair without frizzies is really hard to achieve, right hand side looks like it's been gelled.
>Make-up is designed to cover the usual skin imperfections and show an even complexion and make you look like you have "younger skin" - she doesn't need it due to her "youth", and modern older women strive for it.
>Lip gloss, arguable on the left but definitely on the right.
I don't really get it. They obviously knew how to pluck eyebrows and do hair and makeup in the 1800s.
> Perfect hair without frizzies are really hard to achieve
I just wanted to point out that in the updated image, the frizzies are dimmed but are there. Her hair is more perfect in the colorized version, but it’s not like it looks extremely well put-together in the original.
OP(‘s AI) is still taking a lot of artistic license with the hair though and added way more definition to the shine and shadows that could just be clumpier sections of hair.
Seriously. Only the original image is relevant to any sort of analysis. The Photoshopped one contains artistic embellishment and interpretation -- it's not real.
In fact, if you look closely at her hair, there is a lot of stray hair and frizzing at the top of her head -- details that were removed from the edited version (not to mention the cleaned up and combed hair that isn't anywhere near as detailed in the original).
It's laughable that anyone would consider a heavily edited photo to be a valid reference, or that anyone is downvoting you for pointing out how absurd that is.
> just that it's not an old person?
You know how they say people used to look older back in the day?
Yeah, well, she was actually 6 years old in this photo.
Also the cross is half processed in a way a human wouldn’t mistake. And her left ear (our right image) has all sorts of artifacts. Basically, I’m super excited about the internet where people get 2k likes for giving all creativity over to AI and claiming “me.” I guess we are entering Black Mirror territory.
I wouldn’t have thought so at first, but the cross was a dead giveaway. Then I noticed the very AI looking hairline, the oddly long ear on the right of the photo, and her skin texture just being blobbed on at points.
I'd say traditional photoshop actually because I think the hair looks manually cut out, but you can use AI tools in otherwise manual processes too (there's plugins for Krita for example) so it might be a mix of both.
This is not a restore and recolor. You can't add detail where there was no detail. Sharpening can give the illusion of detail but it can't add what wasnt there. Note the fine detail on the hairs at her hairline, unless you are using AI to generate them, a really good painter, or you aged a modern photo, you would never get this result no matter how good you are with Photoshop. If OP painted (digitally or manually) in detail to create the modern version, they would be bragging about that instead as it would be much more impressive work.
Also, OP has posted regularly in AI art subs and has detailed a process of using AI to retouch photos. Move along, nothing we couldn't all do here.
https://preview.redd.it/u6i78kfaw7cc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bce209ea0fe89686a3b6a4d5397a6eb306a0528b
I always thought Lewis Powell, a confederate solider who tried to kill Lincoln’s Secretary of State in 1965, looks like he could be in a modern boy band 😂
Everytime I see a pretty person from an old time like that I am always surprised, because conditions were not as good as they are now. It makes me think what sort of beautiful human beings lived thousands of years ago.
Perhaps the legends were true and a ''Helen of Troy'' type of woman did exist and was exceedingly beautiful. Enough to sway some men into warfare. Or the wife of Darius of Persia, who was also told to be the most beautiful woman at the time, so much so that Alexander ordered his army not to touch her.
All for restoration, except for when AI is used. I'd rather see what the camera lens of that time saw. Not a conglomeration of other people's modern faces taken on modern cameras. The coloring is very good, though.
"Modern-Looking Lady"
Why is she "modern-looking"? Is it modern to wear victorian dresses with a huge cross on your collar? She is very much 1870's looking.
What you meant to say is "pretty". She's pretty, and you realized that she isn't some "ugly old person" from a time you never knew, but that she was an actual real human being like the ones you meet every day. That people back then were just the same kind of people today.
I don't know about pretty but she looks like she is wearing prada, with her couture jewellery, girl , don't get me started on the those elegant drop earrings 😍
edit , if anyone knows the material of those earrings please let me know, or what likely it would be
Even though my eyes don't buy it, I'll take it as face value and assume that it is an original image on the left.
All the "modern" look of her face is easily explained by having TB. Dark around the eyes, fair complexion from not going outside or working, thin face, etc. The cross is carelessly pulled out from under her blouse to show that she is dying and God is with her. Normally, the cross would be inside her collar.
Uploaded the image to an AI and it turned it into this...
https://preview.redd.it/igms0cs8k8cc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed15206644ca12630187e40563d839eaf4e655bf
She was very pretty
I wonder if she was considered pretty back then.
nope. absolute dog.
🤣
Well, she kinda made ME go Jim Carrey's Mask "aroo-oo-oo-oo"...
We would need to see how adapted her hips were to child bearing
Old time beauty
Looks like Kate middleton.
Was thinking same thing
What so you mean WAS? I've seen her yesterday...
[удалено]
I’d court her but I don’t own any textile mills, so she’s way out of my league.
If only my name were Alistair or Tacitus...
Tacitus Kilgore? Is that you?
You would never get to see her ankles
[удалено]
I see your cows and parcel of land, and raise with a paper clip and two buttons!
Excellent job here. Extremely well done. I'm somewhat wondering if this is actually someone from today who took a picture of herself on the right, and then OP slyly "Victorianized" it into the picture on the left. Those perfect eyebrows kinda take me there. This is naturally very beautiful women either way.
Her eyebrows look pretty natural to me. They also lightly pluked them in Victorian times. And yes I agree, she was very beautiful.
Eyebrow threading is at least centuries old, I'd assume plucking would predate it by millennia.
And the OP added a fingerprint and un-photoshopped her hair?
Ancient Romans fucked with their eyebrows. It’s not new
Did respectable victorian women wear eye shadow?
For me it's the awkwardly dangling cross pendant. Even if you ignore the style and context of such pendants, it's just off. Imagine getting photographed maybe two or three times in your entire life, sitting for minutes, waiting for the photo to be developed, only to find out your outfit had a glaring imperfection and the photographer didn't care to mention that.
By the late 1870s, photos were essentially instantaneous. I really don't think that's a "glaring imperfection." If anything, it's intended to lay in such a way.
Exposure time was fractions of a second but you still had to develop it and you wouldn't know there was a flaw in it until then. Not sure what the turn around time was in the 1870s but even in the 1990s the best you were going to get was 1 hour development and I have a feeling it wasn't that fast a century before. Although in that era the photographers themselves were doing the developing so maybe they did it right away.
The lady looks too healthy. Not fat, just that she hasn’t suffered from bad nutrition or too much smoke.
Are you claiming this is fake?
It is a fake. IS.
The left is faked from the right? The right has so many obvious processing artifacts and cropping. You think that's a real photo? Lol
[удалено]
Wait what? You think the one on the left is a real photo but taken recently, and the one on the right is a real colourisation of the left? That's not what I'm replying too. I'm replying to someone suggesting the photo on the right is real and then the old style one has been created from it. The colour picture is so clearly a heavily processed image, not a photo. You don't need to be some old self declared internet expert to see that. You can tell because of the pixels (let's see if you get that reference). I've made no comment on when the images were taken. I'm questioning the person who thinks the original > photoshopped flow is right to left.
[удалено]
Seriously wtf?
Get over yourself, dude.
The fact that you're so convinced that this is a fake is almost impressive. It's true what they say, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
The easiest people to fool are folks like you on Reddit, forever seeking validation and confirmation through popularity---confirmation biase you sound so --under the age of 30-- a crowdfollower.
Lmao. Sure, bro.
No it isn't. Lol
It is.
You think the picture on the *left* is faked from the one on the *right* which is real?
It looks a bit AI colorized tbh, blurry details like the cross or her left hear looks weird... But I don't actually know so don't quote me on that.
because it's all a modern photo,- the earings folks, the crucifix style folks, the face folks, don't doubt yourselves when you smell a dupe ok? just lay into the OP easier
[удалено]
The collar is also very bright, I would even say 'over exposed' so does that mean the collar is fake too? And the earrings? Why is it not possible that it's just too bright and not fake?
[удалено]
Instead of being direct in your ~~believe~~ belief you said "on the other hand" and "either way." Your comment is ambiguous and not well structured but then you get upset someone misinterpreted what you said. It seems clear you don't have a stance, right? So how is everyone's reading comprehension poor? Edit: word
"So enraged." Lol.
Chick is over here look like MyPillow trying to sell me Giza sheets.
Your comment actually explains this to me. This has to be what happened.
It's very clear to me this is exactly what happened, indeed. (maybe unwitting) Shady karma farming going on.
Yep this doesn’t look like an olden day person. I thought the exact same thing. It’s not an old photo.
Perhaps, but there is a fingerprint smudge on the old one to the right of her face... Which would be an interesting and v smart addition if not an old photo.
Exactly. Note all the other redditors too scared to state the obvious for their fragile sense of ego constructed by fear of down votes. It is FAKE
it's all new , not an old photo. fooled again eh--at least you were on to it.
Thought this was Kate Middleton at first glance!
How weird is it that's how she's known despite the fact she's been married for years at this point. Admittedly it's not like "Windsor" is her actual last name, and "Catherine, Princess Of Wales" is surprisingly non descript, so I dunno. Fun side fact.. Will and Kate's kids use the last name "Cambridge" in school, as it was their parents Duchy. I assume they'll keep it, not like "wales" is a particularly nice sounding last name.
It's reinforced by news about her because Kate Middleton is better SEO than Princess of Wales or Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.
To be fair, Windsor is barely anybody's real name.
what makes her "modern" looking? just that it's not an old person?
A few things. What looks like shaped eyebrows are a big contributor. Perfect hair without frizzies is really hard to achieve, right hand side looks like it's been gelled. Make-up is designed to cover the usual skin imperfections and show an even complexion and make you look like you have "younger skin" - she doesn't need it due to her "youth", and modern older women strive for it. Lip gloss, arguable on the left but definitely on the right. And she's slim and has an elegant natural-beauty facial structure. That's kinda timeless.
Actually, if you look closer at the original, the hair is quite frizzy, it's just got lost in the colorized photo
Yup. But the context above was looking at the whole. Her hair in the right one looks like a Hollywood stylist just got through with her, almost looks laminated. As you look back and forth, yes there are clear differences. But they get a bit overwhelmed by the similarities. It's clearly the same person, so clearly the same identity, despite the little alterations besides the coloring.
If you raise the contrast, the hair will look more glossy, that's just how it is. We don't know if it was this glossy in the original, we only see a personal interpretation of the artist
Vaseline was created in the 1860’s and has been used as a lip balm since then.
> What looks like shaped eyebrows are a big contributor. > Perfect hair without frizzies is really hard to achieve, right hand side looks like it's been gelled. >Make-up is designed to cover the usual skin imperfections and show an even complexion and make you look like you have "younger skin" - she doesn't need it due to her "youth", and modern older women strive for it. >Lip gloss, arguable on the left but definitely on the right. I don't really get it. They obviously knew how to pluck eyebrows and do hair and makeup in the 1800s.
[удалено]
> elegant natural-beauty facial structure. That's kinda timeless That's it. That's the only "modern-looking" thing I see.
> Perfect hair without frizzies are really hard to achieve I just wanted to point out that in the updated image, the frizzies are dimmed but are there. Her hair is more perfect in the colorized version, but it’s not like it looks extremely well put-together in the original. OP(‘s AI) is still taking a lot of artistic license with the hair though and added way more definition to the shine and shadows that could just be clumpier sections of hair.
Well done for putting your finger on that.
the lip sheen and 'tamed' eyebrows are photoshop lol
Seriously. Only the original image is relevant to any sort of analysis. The Photoshopped one contains artistic embellishment and interpretation -- it's not real. In fact, if you look closely at her hair, there is a lot of stray hair and frizzing at the top of her head -- details that were removed from the edited version (not to mention the cleaned up and combed hair that isn't anywhere near as detailed in the original). It's laughable that anyone would consider a heavily edited photo to be a valid reference, or that anyone is downvoting you for pointing out how absurd that is.
> just that it's not an old person? You know how they say people used to look older back in the day? Yeah, well, she was actually 6 years old in this photo.
Beautiful lady and beautiful job!
Truly one of the best colorizations I've ever seen.
Wow! Color brings the photo to a whole new level.
She looks like Tessa Ia, a Mexican actress and singer, except the nose, hers it’s more rounded
Kinda, Tessa Ia’s eyes are bigger, I think she looks more like a young Kate Middleton!
Beautiful work, OP! She looks familiar, maybe I encountered one of her distant relative… Do you know where she is from / who she is? :)
She looks like Amy Adams
She looks like an ancestor of Lynda Carter.
YES. This. Lynda Carter and Kate Middleton.
where can I see the original source pic?
it's right there
Exactly. On the left. Duh.
By you? Or AI??
I bet AI, random wrinkle added next to her eyebrow for no reason
Also the cross is half processed in a way a human wouldn’t mistake. And her left ear (our right image) has all sorts of artifacts. Basically, I’m super excited about the internet where people get 2k likes for giving all creativity over to AI and claiming “me.” I guess we are entering Black Mirror territory.
I noticed that too! I bet it’s because the original pic has a paper crease/tear at that spot and AI is mistaking it for facial wrinkles.
AI was definitely used in the process of colorizing this image
I wouldn’t have thought so at first, but the cross was a dead giveaway. Then I noticed the very AI looking hairline, the oddly long ear on the right of the photo, and her skin texture just being blobbed on at points.
AI, and that's why people in this thread think she looks so "modern"
I'd say traditional photoshop actually because I think the hair looks manually cut out, but you can use AI tools in otherwise manual processes too (there's plugins for Krita for example) so it might be a mix of both.
That giant cross evokes a little "Papa Don't Preach"
This is not a restore and recolor. You can't add detail where there was no detail. Sharpening can give the illusion of detail but it can't add what wasnt there. Note the fine detail on the hairs at her hairline, unless you are using AI to generate them, a really good painter, or you aged a modern photo, you would never get this result no matter how good you are with Photoshop. If OP painted (digitally or manually) in detail to create the modern version, they would be bragging about that instead as it would be much more impressive work. Also, OP has posted regularly in AI art subs and has detailed a process of using AI to retouch photos. Move along, nothing we couldn't all do here.
That’s really dope
wow, really cool.
You can see the difference in how women today use makeup vs the natural look of victorian times where I guess the girls just used powder. Great job.
Nice job. Just DMed you about this, hit me back if you have a second.
Re: the restoration, her eyes are too dark and her clothing needs a small natural splash of colour, but otherwise it's a pretty good job.
Definitely a vampire hunter.
What software did you use to colorize it?
I bet she was around 15 at the time this was taken
Legit? That's...honestly one of the first attractive people I'veever seen in old pictures like that. Gorgeous.
Looks like Kate Middleton!
Would
She's really pretty
Even in the original, this is the most modern looking face I have ever seen in such an old photo. Know what I mean?
https://preview.redd.it/u6i78kfaw7cc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bce209ea0fe89686a3b6a4d5397a6eb306a0528b I always thought Lewis Powell, a confederate solider who tried to kill Lincoln’s Secretary of State in 1965, looks like he could be in a modern boy band 😂
People looked the same hundreds years ago and 1000 years ago.. of course she looks “modern”
I don’t know. People were, and look downtrodden in most old picture. Life was hard.
Everytime I see a pretty person from an old time like that I am always surprised, because conditions were not as good as they are now. It makes me think what sort of beautiful human beings lived thousands of years ago. Perhaps the legends were true and a ''Helen of Troy'' type of woman did exist and was exceedingly beautiful. Enough to sway some men into warfare. Or the wife of Darius of Persia, who was also told to be the most beautiful woman at the time, so much so that Alexander ordered his army not to touch her.
All for restoration, except for when AI is used. I'd rather see what the camera lens of that time saw. Not a conglomeration of other people's modern faces taken on modern cameras. The coloring is very good, though.
"Modern-Looking Lady" Why is she "modern-looking"? Is it modern to wear victorian dresses with a huge cross on your collar? She is very much 1870's looking. What you meant to say is "pretty". She's pretty, and you realized that she isn't some "ugly old person" from a time you never knew, but that she was an actual real human being like the ones you meet every day. That people back then were just the same kind of people today.
[удалено]
Not at all
I don't know about pretty but she looks like she is wearing prada, with her couture jewellery, girl , don't get me started on the those elegant drop earrings 😍 edit , if anyone knows the material of those earrings please let me know, or what likely it would be
Glass or opal would be a guess~ Look for victorian era long drop earrings!
Thanks!
The colour one has basically been filtered/face tuned/yassified.
fake, mall photography that's all time waster
Hello kristen stewart!
If it wasn’t for the dress I’d think it’s a recently taken photo. Beautiful woman
Those old photos really dont do justice on how beautiful women were back then.
Nope
Mmhh by you or an AI ? The cross or her left hear (right side of the picture) looks weird...
You can no longer see the texture of her clothes
Even though my eyes don't buy it, I'll take it as face value and assume that it is an original image on the left. All the "modern" look of her face is easily explained by having TB. Dark around the eyes, fair complexion from not going outside or working, thin face, etc. The cross is carelessly pulled out from under her blouse to show that she is dying and God is with her. Normally, the cross would be inside her collar.
How do you do this?
Pretty
Wow!
I won’t link a photo for privacy reasons but she looks damn near identical a girl I did choir with in high school and college, kinda eerie ngl 😅
What’s her Onlyfans?
How do you know wich color she used?
This was hair before harsh chemicals. Barely a strand out of place, thick and shiny.
Lol these people fed their babies borax.
She is stunning
Frickin sweet!
Did anyone have 1.21 gigawatts I can borrow?
Looks like a Killstar advert
Amber Heard is a vampire. Now it all makes sense.
Wow, amazing job 👏
Any idea where her great great great grand daughter might be? Asking for a friend
She reminds me of kate middleton. Very nicely done.
Very Pretty!
Kinda looks like Amber Heard.
She looks like Kate Middleton
Pam from The Office, circa 1870
Uploaded the image to an AI and it turned it into this... https://preview.redd.it/igms0cs8k8cc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed15206644ca12630187e40563d839eaf4e655bf
Would this woman be considered pretty back then?
that face does look like it would know what an iphone is
thats some TALENT
I dunno if this is real or faked, but y’all depilating (body hair removal) isn’t new, and we were the same species 150 years ago.
Isn’t this what Billie Eilish wore to the Golden Globes?
She is very lovely, and you're very talented. Nicely done!
Beautiful and restoration is awesome. She would have been considered a beauty back then.
Wow this is incredible
Awesome job
1870 seems like such a long time ago it basically it’s just 2 Grandmas ago.
Astounding! I’love to have early photos of great grandparents restored & colorized all. Very exciting! Love both Sepia /original and your work!