In a response to one of the challenge entries, Nick Carter just asked the $million$ dollar question. I'd really like to hear everyone's opinions on it :)

I am in a quandary, for these restoration challenges, where is the line between, restore, and retouch.

To the casual observer (that being me) who doesn't do much in this area at all, the difference is that retouch would be just a levels adjust, for instance, or a sharpen, or maybe curves - something that a few minutes of work would accomplish. A restore, on the other hand, is removing cracks and tears and masking tape and whatever else is on the picture or that has removed part of the picture and that takes hours instead of minutes.
:wavey:

Good question Jak!
To me, Retouch means enhancing or manipulating - such as removing blemishes, telephone wires, removing or adding people, changing backgrounds, etc.

Restore, would be fixing cracks and tears, reconstructing missing pieces, repairing damaged areas, etc.

Retouch - change or enhance the original
Restore - return the image to it's original state

I agree with Vikki.

In my opininion, Restore repairs damage to an image without altering the elements of the original image. Dust and crack removal, contrast adjustment, noise removal, etc. are all OK but artistically adjusting the image is not.

Retouching allows removal of facial blemishes, elimination of elements, or anything else that enhances the original image.

Good topic!! I've been wondering about the difference between these two words myself. Thank you all for clearing it up for me.

Of the two, I prefer "restoration" it brings me more satisfaction. I can work on a restoration project for hours without becoming impatient, but retouching (levels adjustments etc.) are very boring to me.

Margaret

To me restoring is a subset of retouching (hence our site name).

For our Challenges, however, I make the differentiation of restoring meaning adding or replacing missing or corrupted information, with retouching meaning correction or artistic refinement.

This is purely arbitrary and artificial, though. I had to draw a line somewhere, and even I don't always pay attention to where the line is.

My brother-in-law made a decent living doing retouching of negatives. When I was a kid, I used to watch him do some of his magic, and I guess that's where I got my understanding of what retouching is. To me, it's eliminating or softening bags under the eyes, removing acne, eliminating loose hair strands, that type of thing. Restoration, on the other hand, means something different to me. Restoration is, as has already been said, returning the image to it's original state. I do think there are different kinds of restorations. The type we do here on this site would probably not be a restoration at all when it comes to restoring museum quality documents. That type of restoration would, in my opinion, require special skills in different areas, unlike doing the Photoshop thing.

Ed

Great answers, guys!

What about those photos we've gotten where the client wants it put back to its original state, but it's missing a lot of info that has to be rebuilt? What about ones that you borrow body parts for? Does it depend on whether you borrow body parts from another photo of the same person, or from an entirely different one? Is it a retouch or a restore?

Well that sounds like a manipulation.
Blatant manipulation! :D

I agree. It's neither a retouch or a restoration. It has to be a manipulation.

Ed

Ok, more great answers... :)

Now here's the $million$ question...

Does it really matter at all whether you call it restoration, retouching or <gasp!> blatant manipulation as long as it's what the client wants and they are happy with it...??

:D

Well, that was my thought Jak. ;) No - I don't think it matters what you call it as long as the client is happy with the image!
Jeanie

No, it doesn't matter.
The client would probably just call it "fixed".

:)

In most cases it probably wouldn't make a difference. But if you give anything in writing, such as a receipt, and you call it a restoration, it could make a difference. For instance, if you did a manipulation on a photo that could have historical value, even to one family, that could be cause for concern. What I'm getting at here is things being genealogical or historical in nature. Although I'm not heavily into genealogy, it has been noted that falsehoods pertaining to genealogical information have been encountered for many years. Some people have actually made family histories, where they have traced your ancestors to the throne of whatever country. Then they sell these histories to unknowing clients. Many times people have been ripped off for huge amounts of money. So any photo that changes history should not be called anything except a manipulation in my opinion.

Ed

....and that's why I simply call my business "Photo Fixing"

Margaret

Good point, Ed.

Say I do a manipulation for Fannie. Her parents divorced when she was a baby and hate each other's guts. No photo of them together exists. Fannie wants Mom & Dad in a photo together. I do the work and give her a receipt for a manipulation.

Fifty years down the road, Fannie's great grandchildren find my manipulated photo. Fannie has passed on, and the receipt I provided was lost years ago...

I enjoy doing work that involves manipulating history, but I'm also uneasy about it.

Jak, your scenerio where you put the two warring parents into the same picture and then the manipulation gets passed down with no documentation to alert people that it is a "forgery" troubles me. I wouldn't want to be part of perpetuating a myth.

I get asked to remove people from photos - in one case, there were three men standing side by side and the customer wanted them separated onto individual pictures - I had no problem with that. Another customer wants me to remove a stranger from an 1898 picture of her great-great-grandmother as a young girl - I'd rather do the extraction electronically rather than have her mangle the original picture.

What I'm not comforable with is putting the 5th brother into a studio portrait of the other 4. The picture is from the 1940's and all the brothers are in their various military uniforms. I don't know why the 5th brother wasn't in the portrait, but there must have been a reason - maybe he was on a secret mission in the Pacific, who knows. Faking the portrait to make it look like he was there, puts a stop to the question and possibly puts a stop to research into a very interesting period of family history.

As it happens, I've worked on this manipulation for a couple of weeks off and on, and it's impossible to match the 5th brother to the other 4 and I'm going to have to explain that I can't do it - the more I think about it the more relieved I am.

Maybe I should consider a different line of work....

Margaret

I think there comes a time when you have to make a judgement as to whether or not it's the right thing to do. I know in Katrin's book, there was an example of a daughter who wanted to be placed in a portrait with her father, who was deceased. IMHO, something like that would be acceptable as long as there were no other elements in the picture that would cause a possible problem in the future. Excellent thread Jak.

Ed

Ed, you made a really important point. I'm glad that a novice like me heard this at the start of my journey.
Thanks.

I am the keeper of my own family's genealogy, which I've been working on diligently for years. I've had many people (both relatives and not) ask to have people combined in a photograph that were not actually togther at that point. Even sometimes not all living at that point...

I was in Tennessee this last Memorial Day for a reunion of my mom's siblings. Well, the 5 remaining children anyway. One of my Uncles passed away a couple of years ago. I did a group portrait of the five of them, and four of them want me to add my deceased uncle into the photo (the one dissentor thinks it's a morbid idea).

As the family genealogist, it really doesn't bother me much that I'm asked to combine people into one photograph. It's more a sentimental issue than a historical one. That was the first time all of my aunts and my uncle had gotten together that way in many years. My deceased uncle was on their minds, and in their hearts. He was certainly present there in spirit and memory. And, anyone in the future with birth and death information will know that it was impossible for him to have been physically present at that gathering even though he may have been added to the photograph.

I remember doing a job for one client who had photographs of her parents from their honeymoon. There was no one there to take a photo of them together in that particular spot, so they took each other's pictures. Obviously, they weren't both in the same image together, and the client wanted them to be.

The only issue with changing history that I personally would give any great thought to is on photographs from historical societies and the like, where accurate historical records are the point of the exercise. Image manipulation is a common fact of today's society. Before photography, there was painting, which was completely open to manipulation of the facts. I believe that future generations will take that fact into account, just as we take into account the fact that in certain points in history, boys were commonly clothed in dresses for photographic sittings... It's those little societal idiosyncrasies that make doing a genealogy so interesting. It's like solving a puzzle, or being some kind of Dick Tracy sleuth. It adds interest. Researching those types of things teaches a genealogist a lot about the kind of society their ancestors were living in at the time, giving them more insight into the history than just plain basic facts & figures.

Please remember that this is all my own personal opinion on the subject. If it makes Fannie happy to see her parents together, even if only in a photograph, I personally just don't have a huge problem with creating that for her. I can mention the historical ramifications to her, but in the end I will go with her judgement call on the matter. I also don't want to turn into some kind of "Photo Cop" who decides what is morally correct with respect to other people's photographs. That's not to say that it's wrong for anyone else to feel that they must maintain some kind of historical integrity. It's just something that I am not too personally concerned about.

That's why I said there comes a time when we, as individuals, have to decide what's the right thing to do. Certain things are right or wrong, but there are many gray areas to be concerned with. For those of you who might change history through manipulation, I wonder if it would be a good idea to somehow put a note on the back (or the very bottom) of the photo saying that it was a manipulated image? Yes I know that it might be copied, but at least the original manipulated image would be so marked.

Ed

Fascinating discussion! Ed, I was wondering the same thing about putting some sort of note on the back of the picture. I know there is archival ink available that would not hurt the photograph (and there certainly IS ink which would hurt an photo - so be careful!) Yes, it could be copied, but I can tell you that going through my grandparents old photos (they are deceased), it sure is helpful to have any note on the back to tell me who/what/when is in the picture!

Jeanie

Hi! everyone
I posed the original question, I have been interested in viewing your answers, Vikki has answered simply, plainly and to the point, to my way of thinking anyway.
The main reason I asked the question, when I first started doing the challenges, Doug had set down the guidelines quite clearly, and I was happy with that, everyone was one a level playing field. I'm a mere beginner, but by observing and reading what others had done in a particular type of challenge, I could learn and apply those methods, but then I saw that that there were entries that plainly transgressed the guidelines, [ a restoration that was a blatant retouch ] and often they were done by 'Seniors', and were praised for it by other seniors. A restoration on a damaged image is open to individual interpretation to a degree as one cannot see just what the original was like in its pristine state, but that should not lead to large scale alteration. So I thought that possibly my interpretation of the guidelines was not correct, and decided to seek clarification.
Perhaps Doug could introduce a fifth challenge, an anything goes challenge, take any photo from another challenge and see what one can make of it, instead of altering the guidelines to suit oneself.

Originally posted by Ed_L
For those of you who might change history through manipulation, I wonder if it would be a good idea to somehow put a note on the back (or the very bottom) of the photo saying that it was a manipulated image? Yes I know that it might be copied, but at least the original manipulated image would be so marked.
Ed

Good thought!!! There needs to be some code of ethics in it before it can be truly classified as a "profession". When I truly "restore" a photo (that's doable in many cases), I don't know even what to call it because of the mass confusion caused by the wide spread advertising of "image recreations" as "old photo restorations".

Jim C

Here are some of my thoughts on defining some terms we use. I've tried to take the terms as they apply in the preservation field (where most of the terms originated from anyway) and try to apply them to digital work.

Preservation copy - scan and print without changing anything

Restoration - A catch all for manipulating, retouching, recreating losses, covering up damages and what not. (In the preservation field restoration is a term used for repairing and recreating to bring the piece back to it's original state or a state that might not be original but makes it "look good" and look pristine. This would include manipulating, adding in people or objects, removing things that are ugly or not acceptable, changing the color etc.). When dealing with original art this is rarely ethical and can often end up changing the value of a piece (inappropriately) or tricking the purchaser.

Retouch - an aspect of restoration where damaged areas are inpainted, touched up or recreated.

What is missing is a "conservation" type result. In conservation the goal is to preserve, stabilize and repair/retouch to a degree but not to restore. Because know one can truly know what the photograph looked like when it was originally made a conservation copy would preserve the existing color and appearance of the piece and repairs would be made to eliminate cracks and tears but losses would not be recreated with new objects or people. And things would not be removed. As mentioned this can change history or value. Losses instead are "toned in" with a color or texture that allows the blank area to blend with the rest of the image so it is not a glaringly obvious loss. Partial objects are sometimes recreated if enough information is provided in the image. Manipulation would not be acceptable.

There is a lot of controversy over using digital cameras /scanning of images in the preservation field because of the potential for the manipulation of images.

I hope this makes some sense to someone out there!!!

Another two cents from me!

--Heather

:D

Heather, you surprised me with the idea that the word "restoration" could in any way be a "catch all" term. I have always thought of it as exacting (other than the way the term is loosely kicked around in photography)!

It would be difficult for me to imagine raising millions for a "restored" Statue of Liberty if the project had been nothing more than a replica by a different artist and designer, using new and different materials, being built on the other side of the harbor! Wouldn't that be Las Vegas style "restoration"? :-)

Here's a link to another version that may be of interest on the topic:

http://www.assoc-restorers.com/r-articles/types_of_restoration.html

Jim C

I appologies for my thought process being unclear and confusing in my previous post. In part it was due to the time of night and that there were a lot of thoughts running through my head. After thinking about it further and debating the terms with my husband I've decided to take another stab at it!

This is an interesting topic because the terms have been muddied a lot as Jim mentioned. The terms we use for dealing with original pieces (preservation, conservation, restoration) can not be carried over "as is" into the digital world. So as a result those terms need to be defined and understood and by understanding them new terms, relating to the digital world of restoring images, can be created (I use the term restoring loosely for the moment).

First let me say that historically people have paid a lot of money to have items restored that have resulted in virtually recreated pieces. In fact they have paid money specifically to have a piece altered. This has been the tragic side of the restoration field. I've watched painting conservators attempt to take off overpainting by zealous restorers who have literally kept parts of a face but painted over/changed everything else about a portrait by a famous painter. In some cases the owner of the painting has requested that the attire be changed/mordernized/updated in other cases a woman was too vuloptuous (sp?) and a thinner appearance was desired. Needless to say recreated masterpieces and even forgeries are, unfortunately, fairly common in the art world.

The unethical practices of past restorers is one of the reasons conservators have strived to set themselves apart from the restoration community. (Other reasons include - an emphasis on preservation rather than asthetic appearance, extensive education in history/materials/techniques, and use of chemically stable and removable materials to name a few).

That said what I was trying to get at with [digital] restoration being a catch all (probably not the best choice of words) is that manipulating, retouching, recreating losses and covering up damages are all things that can be utilized in the process of digitally restoring an image to bring it back to it's altered but pristine appearance. I say altered and pristine rather than original because this is what "restorers" working on original pieces have given us as examples.

My interpretation of the "restoration" challenge on Retouch Pro is to attempt to make the image whole again or bring it back to it's original appearance without necessarily manipulating, coloring, adding or subtracting items. To me this is trying to be as true to the original as possible prior to any damage. This could be considered an ethical restoration or a historically accurate restoration rather than an asthetic restoration (made to look pretty).

So to summarize my current thinking... there are three levels of digital work that we can do:

1) Preservation Copy - change nothing just duplicate the image that is provided

2) Digital Restoration For Historical Accuracy- All attempts are made to create an image that resembles what the original looked like when it was produced

3) Digital Restoration for Asthetic Improvement - Making it look good using all the methods available to us. And if a client desires this can include removing or recreating people or objects.

As always this is just my thought process on a computer screen! A long winded thought process at that! :)

Thanks for listening,

Heather

I have to admit that the "catch all" phrase kind of took me by surprise too. Thanks very much for clarifying your views on the matter. Digital restoration for asthetic improvement is not something that I, personally, think of as "restoration". But I'm not a conservator, or even close to it. Just my personal interpretation.

Ed

It's funny because I never really thought of it any other way. I guess it's because 99% of the things I digitally retouch/manipulate are scanned old originals.

For interest sake I decided to go on google and type in digital restoration and digital retouch to see how people are using the terms. In the majority of cases retouching came as a subset of restoration and restoration was used as the descriptive term for the overall process that the business does. That's not to say that there weren't the occasional retouchers for new image because there were some.

When I typed in digital manipulation I got fewer restoration businesses and more graphic design type applications. However it seems that many digital restorers don't use the term manipulation in there descriptions and still provide the same type of services (removing people etc.) under their restoration services.

I'm not sure if this means anything but it was interesting to look at how words are being used.

--Heather

Conservators believe in documentation - so I'll stick with that - and as Ed suggested, just continue to let the world know in attached annotations "this is a copy of.." or the list of "fixes" that were made when I'm working on the originals..

It has never occurred to me to change the "look" on an original restoration assignment other than to rebuild deterioration or damaged areas. An "image recreation" (not an original restoration) is priced much, much lower, so no confusion to my clients there! In all of the orders that I have handled I've only had two requests that I can think of for doing odd things to an original. One was a little old lady who wanted her "dotted" dress simplified - did that - then she found another dress she liked - and like working with Mrs. Winchester on her house, she decided she was going to spend her megabucks playing with photo restoration like paper dolls so we sent her somewhere else! The other was a guy who wanted a MG baseball card "fixed" - sent him packing as well so, from my experience, that type of problem is a very limited one.

To get a sample of why "defining" is important however (and becoming a major problem), all you have to do is spend an hour on Ebay - the sellers are offering old photos made yesterday and it can be so confusing (knowledgeably or otherwise) that you don't dare bid on an "original" anything without inquiries to try and determine exactly what they mean by "old photos".

In our business we try to keep it simple so there is no confusion in the minds of our prospective clients and to make it easy to discuss our work on the phone. As a "Restorer", I can fix old photos and bring them back to their original look. Yes the damage still shows but it is subdued to the point that it is acceptable and it is still an original! The second option is what most others call "restoration". We call it "recreation" (with new materials). I think it is a more descriptive term, simple to explain and using it reduces any chance of misunderstanding where we can do both.

As a "Conservator" the word "materials" belongs in there. I'm a "Photo Materials Conservator". In my case that job title has nothing to do with restoration - it's more scientific and like collecting and disseminating forensic evidence, you look for problems and why they are happening. For example, the work that I've done on testing RC papers (for major museums and in conjunction with other researchers) to determine the causes of rapid deterioration. Other examples include fire safe tests, disaster prevention planning etc. - so the fields (and assignments) are totally segregated in my work - and no burred lines over which is what!

I'm not in agreement that "digital" changes any of this - it's just another tool and part of the problem in the definitions is confusing the public with the tools that we use instead of explaining the work that we do.

Jim Conway

This has become an informative and interesting thread. I like the term "recreation". I think quite often, customers are expecting to see their original worked on, only to find out that it is a digital "recreation" that is being discussed. Until this point, I've called it a digital restoration, but I think the word "recreation" is a better description. But I wonder if the public would think of a "recreation" as something of lesser quality or lesser value than a "digital restoration" even though they are the same.

Ed

Not in my experience Ed - I think they will respect you for clarifying what you do. Most people cannot afford "real" restorations but they do know what they are!

At the risk of making a few people upset here - the quality of "digital" in many cases is so low the buying public is starting to associate the word with GIGO. Like "desktop publishing" a few years back when the computer was being touted as the latest wonder of the world in that field, it brought people into the business that knew nothing about printing or publishing. That didn't last long and now how many of the printers still in the business talk about the "tools" like they make a page flow?.

Buyers WANT good recreations and when you offer that - without the "digital" hype you'll get more chances to explain your work and why it's better than xyz.. Most people now have access to software that claims "restoration" capability so the real buyers out there are looking for talent not for "do it yourself" type work!
ie: People that own cameras still hire photographers - but they learned for themselves that it's not the camera that matters so are not as easily mislead!

As computer enhancements improve I think the "bases" will become an option also - I can see the time coming that will allow transferring images onto metal or fiber base papers as well as cloth or whatever - so you'll be able to go for "replication" even of tintypes.

It's a great world opening up out there for the ones with a knowledge of photo history and the same talents that have always been required in the field. No computer can make someone who has no talent into an artist or teach them to "see" if they have no taste!

Jim C