--
title: "AI Colorize vs Hand Colorization: The Honest Comparison"
description: "Cost, speed, accuracy, and when each wins. Plus the two-pass workflow that combines both: AI for the base, a human for the spots that need period knowledge."
tags: ["ai", "photography", "comparison"]
canonical_url: https://old-photo-restoration-saas.shop/blog/colorize-vs-hand-colorization
Everyone with an old family photo hits the same fork: press a button and let AI colorize it, or pay someone to hand-color it. The honest comparison, on the things that matter.
The speed and cost gap is not subtle. A commercial AI tool colors a photo in about a minute, often free. A hand colorist charges $20 to $150 per photo and takes one to four hours each. If you have a drawer of 200 slides, the decision makes itself: AI for all of them, hand color only the ones you will frame.
Where AI wins. Skin tones and faces, modern models have seen millions, they come out natural almost every time. Nature and common objects, sky, grass, water, wood, strong priors. Volume, entire albums in an evening with consistent output. Cost, free options are genuinely good enough for most family photos.
Where hand colorization still wins. Era-specific accuracy, a researching artist gets the 1940s uniform, the period car paint, the shop sign right, AI guesses. Emotional subtlety, artists make choices, muted tones for a serious portrait, warm light for a wedding, AI averages. Damaged originals, a skilled artist repaints with intent, AI amplifies the damage.
The workflow that actually works. Do not treat it as either/or. Run the AI pass first, then hand-fix the few spots that matter. The AI gets skin and sky right in ninety seconds. The human corrects the uniform, the car, the sign. Total cost: the AI pass plus twenty minutes of one person's attention, not a full hand job.
For most family photos, the AI pass alone is enough. For the one that hangs on a wall, add the human pass. That is the honest split.
