# Wolfman original color photo?



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I came across this...

http://gammillustrations.bizland.com/monsterkid1/index.html

It does not look to be recolored... is it a color publicity shot from one of the Chaney Wolfman movies? If so, I can't recall seeing a color shot of the Wolfman before.

I was actually looking for a color picture from one of his Mummy films...


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Wow, never saw that one either.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

Looks close to the photo I've seen.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

This might be the real thing, but I found a similar picture at this site http://thehorrordrunx.com/

Kitz' :wave:


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

That one is definitely recolored or retouched for the ad its used in.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> That one is definitely recolored or retouched for the ad its used in.


Yes, definitely touched up for sure, and the one at Monster Kid online, looks like the real thing to me, but anyone who is skilled with programs like Photoshop, can take a black & white photo and make it look like a realistic color photo.
I wish there was a way to authenticate it. Would be great if it's the real thing.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

THis is colorized.
http://gammillustrations.bizland.com/monsterkid2/


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Mitchellmania said:


> THis is colorized.
> http://gammillustrations.bizland.com/monsterkid2/


That one looks real to me also, and I only say that because of the subtle changes in colors on Bela's makeup, especially around his forehead and ears.
But you are probably right though.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Its really not too hard to tell vintage hand colored shots from vintage color shots... Photoshop is a different story but I doubt many people would go to the trouble to colorize an obscure photo and then not promote it... its not like the Wolfman pic was easy to find or even touted as a "rare color picture". You could probably track down the source too. For example, if the pic was scanned from an original color print, came from a 1940s promotional flyer etc. than its genuine. Still publicity photos were common and many were in color, even for a b/w movie. There are color photos of the Creature From the Black Lagoon's suits...


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

You know guys, there is a contact link on the site. Why not drop them a line and ask?


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

Kitzillastein58 said:


> That one looks real to me also, and I only say that because of the subtle changes in colors on Bela's makeup, especially around his forehead and ears.


The only reason I think is the lining of his cape is more of a golden salmon color, not red. And Glenn Strange said the color of his make up was like "the color of rusted aluminum (whatever that color is)."


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

It would be so cool if someone had a web site of just real color photos of the monsters!!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Ben Chapman has some original Creature pics on his site...

http://www.the-reelgillman.com/gallery/snapshots/movie/life_mag2.jpg

It would be cool to have a compillation of genuine Universal monster color pictures.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Mitchellmania said:


> The only reason I think is the lining of his cape is more of a golden salmon color, not red. And Glenn Strange said the color of his make up was like "the color of rusted aluminum (whatever that color is)."


Excellent point, and I can go along with that , either way they are still cool pics, right?


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> Ben Chapman has some original Creature pics on his site...
> 
> http://www.the-reelgillman.com/gallery/snapshots/movie/life_mag2.jpg
> 
> It would be cool to have a compillation of genuine Universal monster color pictures.


Definitely! :thumbsup:


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Guys,

Sorry to disappoint you, but with the few exceptions that are pretty well known, most all of the publicity and/or behind-the-scenes shots were black and white. Color photography was an expensive proposition into the 1960s, and the studios, ever budget-conscious, were not about to waste the extra dollars on these photos. For the most part, they would only be printed in black and white for use in newspaper ads and fan magazines. The color images that appeared on lobby cards were hand-tinted and then printed as four-color artwork, which was much cheaper than printing actual color photographs.

So we really have only Boris Karloff's color home movies and Ben Chapman's color stills to call genuine, contemporary references. Glenn Strange's "rusted aluminum" and other eyewitness accounts are good secondary sources. But beware of newspaper stories or studio P.R., which tended to "filter" reality for the sake of the article, to wit: Jack Pierce never used "acid" to remove Karloff's makeup; some goofball writer mistook *acetone* for the substance, but his mistake still appears in Karloff books to this day.

"Headless Fritz" Frising has a wonderful page on his web site that lists the real hair and eye colors of dozens of genre actors and actresses. Here's a link to the page: http://vampir.headlesshearseman.com/paint.html. There's tons of other stuff to enjoy there as well.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Color film was not as rare as people make it out to be! It dates back to World War I although it was not widely used until the 30s. A lot of color photos tended to be reproduced in b/w and that is why people think b/w was all that was in use. You do find color publicity shots. Even the Nazis made great use of color during the second world war. Even when color motion picture film was not used (becuase of reproduction costs) still camera film was used, both professionally and by amateurs.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

I grant you all that, deej. It's possible somebody is sitting unknowlingly on great-grandpa's color snaps of Gloria Holden, ready to go on set for _Dracula's Daughter_ (1936). But for business as usual, studio photography was black and white; which newspapers ran color print ads before the 1990s?


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I believe that may be kerry Gammil from the classic horror film board. He's real good.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

djnick66 said:


> I came across this...
> 
> http://gammillustrations.bizland.com/monsterkid1/index.html
> 
> ...


sorry, but its definitely colorized. here are the 2 tell tale signs:
1. in genuine color photos the shadows dont "gray out" the way they do as seen in this pic. here the shadows decrease the saturation of the color, which doesnt happen in real life.
2. in all of the films with that version of the makeup (the long nosed version) his nose tip was the same shade as the rest of his face. it didnt get darker until "A&C meet frankenstein".


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

If Make up artist Bud Westmore (who did Glenn Strange make up in Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein)- He also did Herman Munster's make up- Can we
assume he used that same color make up? We have lots of color photos and film from the Munsters.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

If its a Original Color Photo or not it still looks good to me.:thumbsup:


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Im not saying there are thousands of color photos taken on the Universal sets... but color film was used going back to World War I and it was used even in early Universal horror movies, albeit in a very crude form. Its not unreasonable to assume that especially into the 40s that you could fine a few color set shots or behind the scenes picturse taken either professionally or by the cast members, etc.

As for things being printed in b/w as in newspapers, etc. that is true. But a lot of photos printed in b/w were taken and printed initially in color. Thats why people today are amazed to see so much color WW2 stuff... the original color film was usually reproduced in b/w and thats what people are accustomed to. There is even good color film of the Pearl Harbor attack. Someone just happened to have a color movie camera on hand...


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

djnick66 said:


> ...There is even good color film of the Pearl Harbor attack. Someone just happened to have a color movie camera on hand...


So we can only hope that another color reference from a Universal picture might surface one day.

Mitch,

My first guess would be that Bud Westmore used different colors of makeup for the Glenn Strange Frankenstein and Herman Munster, owing to the different shooting conditions - a 1948 feature film versus a 1960s TV series; I have to figure that different kinds of film stock, lighting conditions, etc. would have their effect on the makeup. Also I have read that the G.S. makeup was silvery, which seems to be borne out by the quote that you gave earlier.

As for Herman, I recall seeing a color spread in _TV Guide_ back when _The Munsters_ was still in production. Fred Gwynne's makeup looked pretty much the way it did in the color features. I imagine that you could verify that by doing a little searching online.

In the end, it's all going to come down to what color you want your monster to be, from shades of gray to match its appearance in the movie, to your own interpretation of those gray shades in color, to a reproduction of the original on set makeup colors based on these scarce original references. And _all_ of these will involve some interpretation on your part - even if everybody tried to paint their Frankensteins according to the color Karloff footage you'd still see variations within that narrower range. The Star Trek guys have been wrestling with this question for years and my answer to it is still the same: it's your model, so if it looks right to you, it *is* right.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

My interest in the colors inst really to do the model to match... but just to see it in color. 

Its the same with all the star trek model kits painted in elaborate multi colored patterns to match the studio miniatures... which were painted garrishly to compensate for the studio lights, etc. On screen they just look white or grey. Do you paint the model to match the filming miniature or the way it was intended to look on screen.

if you ever see the work of Shep Paine, who did the diorama leaflets for Monogram in the 70s, and is quite an accomplished figure painter and shadow box maker... in person his stuff is very exaggerated and contrasty so it photographs better for his books and articles.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

as to westmore, he got credit as the makeup artist of record for every universal film and television show produced when he was head of their makeup department, whether he actually did the work or not. 
theres an interesting story connected to this. he was department head at rko when citizen kane was being filmed, and insisted that his name be the sole makeup credit on the film. welles wanted the actual makeup artist who designed and applied the makeup credited instead, but westmore wouldnt hear of it. as a result, there is no makeup credit whatsoever on citizen kane.
he also had something of a hissy fit when universal sent millicent patrick out to promote the creature from the black lagoon (she designed the gillman, the metaluna mutant, and other characters for universal. she was also quite a hot babe, and she did this on instructions from universal.) dispite the fact that she pointed out in every interview that she worked under westmores supervision, he was so angry about it he made sure she never worked for the studio again!
i remember an article he wrote saying how he glued each individual scale onto the gillman suit. so take any bud westmore related information about any given makeup job with a healthy dose of salt.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

I picked up a DVD set from Amazon not so long ago called 'Heroes of Horror'. It is a collection of the A&E bio-documentaries of Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, LonChaney Jr, Vincemt Price and Peter Lorre. 

Fascinating stuff all round and they included some of the Karloff colour home movies and there is also a very brief colour film shot of Lon Chaney Jr in the Wolfman makeup. The photo referenced by the OP may be coloured (I honestly can't tell) but it's very accurate as to the make up used in the film. I was actually surprised how 'choclatey' brown the face was. There is no human flesh tone at all (contrary to many interpretations of the Wolfman in models and artwork).

Did everyone notice the gloves that Lon Chaney is wearing? Check his left wrist in the photo... :thumbsup: If it is coloured, they went to the trouble of putting the human skin tone on his arm above the glove and not covering the mistake made when the photo was taken.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Oz,

It has always looked to me as though Jack Pierce "laid" the fur directly onto Lon Chaney's hands. You'll notice that the Wolf Man's shirt was invariably buttoned up tight at the neck and wrists, I presume to conserve as much of the expensive yak hair needed for the makeup as possible. If Chaney's un-madeup wrists or neck were momentarily exposed on screen, no big deal. But, as you pointed out, publicity stills were another matter.

The only classic movie monster that I know of on which Pierce used gloves was Henry Hull in _Werewolf of London_ (1933) - and, if you want to get technical, all the Invisible Men. Oh, and he came up with that rubber mask for Lon Chaney in the latter Mummy pictures. Otherwise Pierce seemed to prefer to work directly on the actor.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree Mark, the hair in the film appears to be applied in layers to produce the transformation effect. The clear line at the wrist surprised me as I thought it would appear more indistinct due the the process used, hence my use of the word 'glove' may not be entirely accurate. 

I love to ruminate over this stuff.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

djnick66 said:


> My interest in the colors isn't really to do the model to match... but just to see it in color.
> 
> Its the same with all the star trek model kits painted in elaborate multi colored patterns to match the studio miniatures... which were painted garrishly to compensate for the studio lights, etc. On screen they just look white or grey. Do you paint the model to match the filming miniature or the way it was intended to look on screen.
> 
> if you ever see the work of Shep Paine, who did the diorama leaflets for Monogram in the 70s, and is quite an accomplished figure painter and shadow box maker... in person his stuff is very exaggerated and contrasty so it photographs better for his books and articles.


Good points raised here, The use of colour as we apply it to kits that are built and displayed (usually) in a home environment, is very different when applied to a practical studio model or make up shot under studio lights. 

Going back to Karloff's Frankenstein, the other actors were made up with a ruddy tone to allow the Monster's makeup to stand out as deathly pallid. Painting your Dr Frankenstein like that would look pretty silly IMHO...

So should we paint our kits as per studio colours or as we 'perceive' that they looked? I go with perception every time. Mark McG pointed out in a post to me some time back that there is no right or wrong with these things. You build and paint first and foremost for YOUR enjoyment. Whatever looks right to you, IS right. Mark is an exceptional modeller, and extremely constructive with comments and criticism, so I 'aint about to disagree...

I personally love to see the subtle differences in everyone's work. It would be so boring if we all did our kits like a paint by number kit, wouldn't it?


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

This is actual fur used on Lon Chaney for A&C meet Frankenstein, that I found on an online prop auction a couple of years ago. I can't remember what it went for, around $450.00 I think, but I'm not sure. My geezer powers are starting to fail me again.:tongue:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=94202&stc=1&d=1257729230

Kitz' :wave:


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

OzyMandias said:


> ...I personally love to see the subtle differences in everyone's work. It would be so boring if we all did our kits like a paint by number kit, wouldn't it?


Which is one of the aspects of our hobby that I believe elevates it to a form of Art. Take the Aurora Frankenstein model: if you look him up on the Members' Albums here or over in the Clubhouse Museum, you'll see a couple dozen models that were cast from identical molds, yet _not one of them_ looks the same. This hobby allows each builder free reign to express him/herself. If there's a substantive difference between an unbuilt plastic model kit, a blank sheet of music, or an empty stage I can't find it.

And thank you for your kind personal comments, Oz. Back atcha.

Kitz,

I was a little suspicious about this offering because, first and foremost, you can't believe everything you see on the Internet. Plus, I have used yak hair, and the item in your picture doesn't look like it to me. The stuff I worked with was a little coarser than human hair and very straight.

That being said, I was aware that Emile Lavigne (uncredited, as he was working under Bud Westmore - ref. razorwyre 1's post above) applied the Wolf Man makeup to Lon Chaney in _Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein_ (1948). So the seller got that much right. And there's no proof that Lavigne used the same material that Jack Pierce did; indeed, from what I've read, the yak hair supply was running low, which was once of the reasons why there were so few transformations in the picture. So it's possible that the material being offered was used along with the yak hair to fill out the Wolf Man's fur.

In the end, I would want more than a claim about this material before I would fork over $450. But it cost me nothing to download your photos to save as a color reference for the next time I build a Wolf Man. Whether this was the real deal or not, I thank you for posting the photos.:thumbsup:


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Cheers Mark, credit where credit is due and all that :thumbsup: 

I agree with your Model kits as art analogy 100%. Each piece becomes unique in spite of it's production line origins by application of individual technique and inspiration. I trained in Visual Arts and I can say with complete conviction that an unpainted kit is as exciting (and daunting) as a blank sheet of paper or canvas.

I have just been browsing the galleries making notes as I finish up my Mummy kit. The diversity of colours and techniques applied to this kit alone that I discovered in a 5 minute search here and on Google is truly staggering!

Kitz, thanks from me too for posting the pics. It is interesting to compare the swatch of hair with the OP's picture. Not far off colour-wise. 

I can just see all the yaks in the world in the 1940s thinking... "OMG not _ANOTHER _Wolfman movie!!!"


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Mark McGovern said:


> Which is one of the aspects of our hobby that I believe elevates it to a form of Art. Take the Aurora Frankenstein model: if you look him up on the Members' Albums here or over in the Clubhouse Museum, you'll see a couple dozen models that were cast from identical molds, yet _not one of them_ looks the same. This hobby allows each builder free reign to express him/herself. If there's a substantive difference between an unbuilt plastic model kit, a blank sheet of music, or an empty stage I can't find it.
> 
> And thank you for your kind personal comments, Oz. Back atcha.
> 
> ...


Hi Mark,
I am always suspicious of things like this I find on the internet, and to be completely honest, I too only downloaded the pics as a possible painting reference. 
However, the auction seemed legit to me as they had offered certificates of authenticity for everything they had for sale which, at the time, was mostly items from Spiderman 2. 
I couldn't remember if that was the starting bid, or the final sale price,(it was quite awhile back). At any rate, they were way out of my price range, and I didn't participate in this auction, just got the photo's for reference purposes, and anyone who can use them is more than welcome to them. 

Kitz' :wave:


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

You're more than welcome Oz.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

You know who might have loads of info on what color was the wolfmans fur and ect is Bob Burns.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

if the yak hair was undyed, it would have been a dark greyish brown with a touch of "salt and pepper".... ive used it on masks.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Raze,

The hair I had was almost pure white. I suppose like any other hair product, it comes in many colors. Was your yak hair straight and somewhat more coarse than human hair?


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Black Yak

http://www.rarebreeds.co.nz/yak.jpg

Orange Yak

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kavehkh/59692657/

White Yak

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabine_st/173916038/

Brown Yak

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonkennedyphotography/557454382/


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Man, when it comes to classic monster arcania, you guys sure can yak_._ Now you're yakking about _Yaks!!_


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

I heard that Lon Chaney's fur was more reddish in the Abbott and Costello movie.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

How'd we get from yak to radish?? :freak:


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

Mark McGovern said:


> Raze,
> 
> The hair I had was almost pure white. I suppose like any other hair product, it comes in many colors. Was your yak hair straight and somewhat more coarse than human hair?


mine was streight, and far coarser than human hair. also the catalog noted that it was "natural" color, meaning neither bleached or dyed


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Removed!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Kitz',

You don't say...


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Just a bit of info that got from someone on another board about the wolfman.

Ron Chaney has a color photo of Chaney Jr. in makeup, with Jack Pierce next to him from House of Dracula. It's around the internet somewhere. I first saw it over at the Classic Horror Film Board.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Mark McGovern said:


> Kitz',
> 
> You don't say...


Just got a little bored last night waiting for Tropical Storm Ida to blow through.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Kitzillastein58 said:


> This "white hair' you speak of Mark, comes from the very rare, and ever elusive West Indies Albino Mani-yak, which was last seen in the vicinity of East Government St. in beautiful downtown Pensacola on a Friday night last May. The hair, which is straight yet coarse, as you say, is usually a pasty white and has the tendency to turn a reddish brown during a full moon, why, I don't know, but I understand that this is usually accompanied by the sign of a Pentagram, and then followed by after midnight raids on Taco-Bell, and Waffle House.
> The only known color photo of this beast was stolen by some online magazine and photoshopped beyond recognition, and has been the subject of much debate even to this very day by intellectual minds from all corners of the world.


*URGENT:* Call your pharmacy immediately! They gave you the wrong medication! :freak:


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

scotpens said:


> *URGENT:* Call your pharmacy immediately! They gave you the wrong medication! :freak:


No, as I explained, just got a little bored during the storm. I apologize for showing a silly side, won't do it again!


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Here's an actual color photo of Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/679?page=310

See post #6187

- GJS


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Excellent! Thanks for posting this Batman.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

The Batman said:


> Here's an actual color photo of Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man:
> 
> http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/679?page=310
> 
> ...


That is a frame grab from the footage shown in the Lon Chaney Jr, section of the 'Heroes of Horror' DVD set I mentioned earlier in this thread. 

Thanks for posting. :thumbsup:


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

The Batman said:


> Here's an actual color photo of Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man:
> 
> http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/679?page=310
> 
> ...


It's a great photo, but Lon Chaney Jr had Blue eyes.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Mitch has a point, but - 

A while back, I was trying to determine the right shade of green for Elsa Lanchester's eyes. In every photo I could find on the Internet, they looked dark, much like Chaney's eyes in this photo. Also, one might consider the effects of the age of the photo itself, its generations from film to DVD, etc., on the eye color.

I have not seen the footage from which this photo was allegedly taken. I am making these arguments in favor of it because, first and foremost, the facial structure - particularly the shape of the eyes - really looks like Lon Chaney, Jr.'s to me. Second, this doesn't appear to be a case of color having been superimposed over a black and white image. As someone with an Art degree, admittedly a mere Bachelors', I will stake my powers of observation on the face beneath the makeup belonging to Lon Chaney.


----------

