Johnny Mokan
 

I stumbled across this quite by accident searching for another player.
Attachment 551203

Attachment 551204

I remember reading someplace they said the Phillies didn't have pin stripes until 1950. Guess they were wrong.

Bill Zuber 1936
 

William Henry "Goober" Zuber colorized with the Cleveland Indians, Boston Red Sox, and New York Yankees

Bobby Coombs 1933
 

Raymond Franklin "Bobby" Coombs colorized as a rookie with the Philadelphia Athletics and then a decade later in his sophomore season with the New York Giants

Gus Zernial 1949
 

Gus Edward Zernial colorized with the Chicago White Sox. Ozark Ike is colorized along with Marilyn Monroe.

Charlie Wheatley 1912
 

Charles D. Wheatley colorized from an image posted by Cinemaodyssey

James Durham 1902
 

James Garfield Durham colorized from an image posted by cinemaodyssey

Allyn Stout 1931
 

Allyn McClelland Stout colorized with the Saint Louis Cardinals. Original image of "Fish Hook" Stout posted by Cinemaodyssey

Danny Green 1898
 

Edward "Danny" Green colorized from an image posted by cinemaodyssey.

Frank Eustace 1896
 

Frank John Eustace

Tom Gulley 1923
 

Thomas Jefferson Gulley colorized with the Chicago White Sox Original image was posted by UKBaseballfan

.

Just wondering why you requested this. Stallard never played for the Royals.

.

He was an NRI in 1969 for the Royals

Colorization Requests
 

I would certainly echo the merits of this query and somebody spending time on such a request when there a plethora of other Major Leaguers for whom we do not have colorized images.

I would also query the request on two other grounds.

Firstly one could quite clearly make a distinction of baseball eras into two sections in terms of color, an era where color image reproduction was generally unavailable and a second era when it was. To my mind it is far more justifiable to make requests to colorize images from the first era as we do not have already a host of color images in specific uniforms from that first era unlike the second.

Secondly in an era where the truth is under assault from what is real and what is fake I would like to make the point that a colorization of a real image to make it come to life in the true color of that team's uniform should take priority over an image that has been photo shopped. I can see a case being made to photo shop an image from a more distant time period where an abundance of research has failed to unveil a true image but often I have seen requests for images to be photo shopped when if the requester took the time to undertake some research they would readily find a 'true and real' image that could be utilised.

In defense of Lumpkin (although this request more likely belongs in either the random colorization or general discussion thread), I would submit that, while there may be two eras of color availability, there are at least three eras of image availability. And there are plenty of players in that middle era for whom there are no available images in a uniform they wore professionally--color or B&W. If not for Topps doing their special Pilots inserts this year, I would STILL have no idea what Ron Kotick looked like. And, yes, that was something that was kind of important to me.

Second, people in this community are coming from different places for different reasons and have different interests. Most of them are very appreciative and try to contribute when they can. I, for one, have fairly close to zero interest in players from the turn of the century. But I would never criticize those for whom that is their passion simply because it isn't mine.You want to colorize an image from 1912? Be my guest. I'll even "thank" the post if its done well and it's of a size I could (under a set of circumstances that will never exist) use some day. But, honestly, players from that era--be they colorized or B&W--don't interest me in the least (some exceptions; I'm enjoying Krantz' Federal League players bigly). I can't relate. Even the 40s are ancient and nearly irrelevant to me. But I recognize that that's just me.

Many people who come here are "team" guys. I'm one. I'm a Mets fan. One of my main interests in coming here is acquiring images for the purpose of creating a custom for as many of those who were a part of Mets history as I can do before I die. My customs are cheaply done, just for my own head, and not distributed anywhere or to others. Much of the other stuff I do--including colorizing non-Mets--is primarily about honing skills to make better Mets customs. I especially want to make customs for those who few realize were part of the Mets story. So a guy like Daniel Bard, a successful major league reliever not all that long ago who finished out his career with one disaster of a game in the Mets' low minors and for whom there are no available images in the blue and orange...damn straight I'm gonna photoshop the guy to be able to tell his story (even if I'm only telling it to myself); he's part of my team's story. Again, that's me.

Third, Lumpkin made a "request". He isn't holding a gun to anyone's head. No one has to volunteer their time to fulfill his request. That's their choice. Lots of people make lots of requests, here. Some are so farcical that they're intriguing. I won't be transforming Mr. Stallard...certainly not from that watermarked image...but I don't question Lumpkin's right to ask or someone else's right to do it. I would, though, suggest that a transformation of a Stallard Mets image to Royals would be much easier for anyone so inclined (they're both blue, after all).

As for the real vs. fake thing, I think that's a can of worms we'd do well not to open, here....for soooo many reasons. But, avoiding the obvious, let me just point out that, when you colorize a B&W image, it is a "fake" by definition. Because the image was not color to begin with and that is not what the original photographer intended. And Lord knows you've posted that photoshopped Lazorko as a Tiger image a little too often to be so dismissive of "fake". I agree that some others make an insufficient search at the outset. I would at least appreciate if they'd use the site search. But I doubt you're going to find an image of a lot of expansion NRIs from the 60s, unless they show up in Topps' Vault. And, from what I've seen, Lumpkin makes a greater attempt to find images before asking than many, here.

Finally, you have every right to determine what YOUR priority is. You do not have the right to decide what anyone else's priority should be. The site administrator/host has that right. You and I do not.

Marv Rackley 1947
 

Marvin Eugene Rackley colorized with the 1950 Cincinnati Reds

Colorization Requests
 

I believe you are totally missing the point and misrepresenting my viewpoint in many respects. The point here being that this is not an issue as to whether an individual should be following there own perspective but in this case they are making a request on someone else to follow their own viewpoint or perspective by making that request. If the individual wants to colorize an image or post an image and (I don't care where they post it) that is an entirely different matter than making requests on someone else.

Also it is a misrepresentation of the point I was making in terms of eras as I was referring specifically to colorization eras. Of course if you are looking in terms of images globally you could easily categorize a number of eras on the basis of technology or availability.

On the basis of whether a colorization is a fake my viewpoint is that a black and white image of a color subject is not a true representation. If you look at the maginificent work of pioneers such as Matt Fulling, and others such as Don Stokes, ortforshort, ctrane , etc I would vehemently take the view that their magnificent work produces a much closer representation of reality than a black and white image.

To emphasize this view, by an extreme example, I would ask you to consider a black and white image of say a bird of paradise and compare that to its true image in nature please do not tell me that the black and white version is lifelike. No, it is the black and white version of the image that is unrepresentative of reality.

I apologize if my post came over as a personal attack it wasn't meant to be that, I was merely supporting another contributor's post and expanding on its content more broadly using at as an example of what I believe to be an inappropriate use of other contributor's time. Especially taking into context what had recently been emphasized by Krantzbucks wishing to be able to concentrate on his own agenda's in terms of how he wishes to devote his time. I believe that the sentiment of this request should be respected. I don't recall either stating in my post that a gun had been held to the colorizer's head or that they did not have the right to post what they are most interested in and to suggest otherwise is a gross misrepresentation. I agree that the individual in question has shown evidence that they do attempt to research but that is not always the case with others, and I have no desire to illustrate examples, of which there are many, of requests for colorization when colorized images already exist.

I have also made the point about a misrepresentation of images by posting distorted versions.

You made the point about an image I have frequently posted of Jack Lazorko. The point here is that I was not making the post in pursuant of my agenda but in response to a request from Pegasus for images that appear on his missing list. I have a life to live and I rationalise my time to balance that life into many interests. Accordingly I have chosen not to keep a record of the source of images in my files.

This whole issue is an updated discussion of an old issue on how best to utilise and prioritize requests for colorization and I felt it appropriate to highlight the issue in terms of the recent demands made as they often appeared to me to be unrepresentative of the whole baseball community and appeared instead to be a reflection of an extremely narrow personal viewpoint. It seems to me to be a sensible viewpoint to take that when making a request that you make it on the basis of an addition to the material that benefits the whole baseball community rather on the basis of fulfilling a personal need be that based on a team preference or era preference.

Well my question on Stallard has certainly stirred up a hornet's nest.
I don't closely follow the requests or posts of others here much as I almost
never do requests. I do know that Kranz is extremely generous with his spending
a large portion of his time coloring images for others and to me it seemed like
he was being played for being a good guy.. The guy never pitched for KC, the Cardinal uni is a different color entirely and there's a huge watermark covering a large portion of the image.I still don't get this request. Why not request colorizations of everyone on the NRI list ?

As far as the comment above goes - Your name was never mentioned,
why so touchy?