Photographs of London Underground Stations

January 25, 2005 11:18 AM

Photographs of London Underground Stations Taken on black and white film, then coloured in photoshop. A nice example.
posted by carter (34 comments total)

these are cool--too bad he didn't do anything about the gray skies tho. (and i never knew so many of the stations were modernist--a postwar thing?)
posted by amberglow at 11:34 AM on January 25, 2005

I really liked this one. Then I found out that there are 958 pubs within 3 miles of Chalk Farm Tube station, and now I like it even more.
posted by taz at 11:35 AM on January 25, 2005

Lovely, thank you. I recognise about half.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:43 AM on January 25, 2005

Very cool link.
posted by chunking express at 11:46 AM on January 25, 2005

[this is good]

Tinted photographs are fun.
posted by Vidiot at 11:51 AM on January 25, 2005

These are great, thanks carter.
posted by sellout at 11:56 AM on January 25, 2005

i've seen a similar process done with infrared film, which is colored using Photoshop. similar effect - very dreamlike.
posted by NationalKato at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2005

The technique of localized color in primarily black and white pictures is sometimes considered a bit of a cliche in some photographic circles. These are very well done, however and demonstrate that in skilled hands and with an interesting subject, the result isn't at all tired. I agree, [this is very good].
posted by normy at 12:02 PM on January 25, 2005

V. nice. Thanks, carter.

(I remember doing this with watercolors and self-printed b/w prints on ilford paper back in the days before Photoshop. Sigh.)
posted by shoepal at 12:14 PM on January 25, 2005

Mornington Crescent
posted by johnny novak at 12:17 PM on January 25, 2005

Neato. I like how this assures you there are trains to all parts of London contained within. One question, though: Cockfosters? What's the etymology of that?
posted by dame at 12:20 PM on January 25, 2005

johnny novak wins!
posted by Vidiot at 12:25 PM on January 25, 2005

Also, some of these must have required use of a tripod inside a station. The couple of times I've tried that, the staff have descended from that other dimension that they normally inhabit when you actually need them to announce it's forbidden. To do with causing an obstruction (especially at deserted times of day). Rules is rules, etc. I wonder if there was special permission involved here... or maybe this chap is just has lots of skill points in TripodSteath.
posted by normy at 12:40 PM on January 25, 2005

dame : According to this site and this site it means the chief forester's place. This site offers some history of the place, but no clue to the origin of the name.
posted by kaemaril at 12:52 PM on January 25, 2005

dame:

From "What's in a name?" by Cyril M Harris (ISBN 185414 241 0)

"Cockfosters. This district of north London was recorded as Cockfosters in 1524 and although the origin of the name is uncertain, it is possible that is derived from either the personal name of a family that once lived here, or a house recorded in 1613 on the edge of Enfield Chase called Cockfosters. It is suggested that this was the residence of the chief forester (or cock forester, hence this rather unusual name which, until the arrival of the tube, was sometimes spelt as two words.

Prior to the station's opening the name of TRENT PARK was considered. but it opened as COCKFOSTERS on 31 July 1933."

Italics and bold his choice.
posted by hardcode at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2005

hardcode: Cool book :)
posted by kaemaril at 1:20 PM on January 25, 2005

These are beautiful. I never would have guessed that some of them were colorized. They remind me of hand-tinted postcards from the early 20th century.
posted by mudpuppie at 1:45 PM on January 25, 2005

this gives the proper impression of how old and antiquated london's underground really is. it is simultaneously a world class tourist destination and a third world transportation system.
posted by three blind mice at 1:46 PM on January 25, 2005

Been working in London for a few months, was curious about names like Mudchute, Theyden Bois, Mornington Crescent and Elephant and Castle.

The book was on the counter at Books Etc (like selling chocolate at supermarket counters I spose) and I bought it on impulse. Interesting useless information is my forte.
posted by hardcode at 1:49 PM on January 25, 2005

Very cool. And I'll remember to invite Johnny Novak to the next MeFi Fizzbin Tournament
posted by briank at 1:57 PM on January 25, 2005

Wow, he almost succeeds in making Cally Road look pleasant. Almost.

I think the photographer has been right to concentrate on the older features of the stations. Unfortunately some of the retiling and rebuilding of some of the stations (particularly during the eighties) focused more on cost than appearance. Some of the Baker Street platforms are an example - poor quality modern tiles and cheap hardboard and formica pictures. I hope more of the old features don't get lost.

Great post carter.
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:21 PM on January 25, 2005

too bad he didn't do anything about the gray skies tho

I thought those London skies were just given the same naturalistic treatment as everything else in the photographs...?
posted by Zurishaddai at 2:41 PM on January 25, 2005

Cockfosters? What's the etymology of that

Wasn't Sir John Cockfoster last of the Piccadilly line? geddit?...never mind...
posted by freddles at 8:16 PM on January 25, 2005

all day i've been reminded of a good/bad horror movie i saw, about how they unleashed an evil force when they were renovating a tube station or something that made people go crazy--QUATERMASS AND THE PIT
Aka: FIVE MILLION MILES TO EARTH (US).
posted by amberglow at 8:50 PM on January 25, 2005

Brilliant post! I simultaneously love and loathe the underground...
posted by chrid at 1:39 AM on January 26, 2005

amberglow: see also The London Underground in film and television.
posted by biffa at 2:36 AM on January 26, 2005

this gives the proper impression of how old and antiquated london's underground really is.

The tube can be a bit of a shithole but I don't see the fact that they try and keep original tiling as a bad thing. Quit ethe opposite. The hellish aspects of the tube are caused by volume of commuters not ancient signage.
posted by ninebelow at 4:20 AM on January 26, 2005

Further to the Mornington Crescent posts...
posted by vbfg at 4:51 AM on January 26, 2005

it is simultaneously a world class tourist destination and a third world transportation system

That's utter nonsense. That some original features remain is an indication of nothing.

The tube is a mixed bag. As ninebelow mentioned above, the sheer volume of people trying to get round London makes rush hour pretty hellish at some stations. Otherwise, for most destinations you're going to wait no more than 2 or 3 minutes for a modern train taking you to pretty much anywhere in London. I'd hardly call that a third-world transportation system.

Some of the stations are grubby and unpleasant and need a total overhaul. Tottenham Court Rd springs to mind. Others, such as Westminster and North Greenwich, are as swish and futuristic as you like.
posted by Summer at 4:57 AM on January 26, 2005

I'd hardly call that a third-world transportation system.

How about if you take into account that many third-world countries can be stiflingly hot, over-populated hellholes?
posted by biffa at 5:04 AM on January 26, 2005

Mind the Gap!

Great find. Makes me want to go back to London.
posted by SisterHavana at 7:16 AM on January 26, 2005

I agree with Summer. Surprising as it might sound, according to a recent survey, tourists think the London underground is very efficient and people travelling in it very kind and helpful (just try telling this to my pregnant co-workers!) but it's all down to fact that tourists don't use the tube during rush hour.
posted by blogenstock at 11:02 PM on January 26, 2005

train station spotting.
posted by nanojath at 7:32 PM on February 24, 2005

foiled
posted by seanyboy at 3:56 AM on February 25, 2005