Thought I would start this off. We talked about this subject in a previous post in the wrong forum. I'll show my ignorance in my first three questions.

Do you archive your customer files after the restoration job is complete?

How long do you keep customer files before distroying them?

When you purchase a copyright release for a customer, doesn't that release belong to the customer?

quick answers
1 yes, most definately
2 forever
3 it belongs to the customer

Thanks for your answers Sanda. Hopefully others will follow suit.

I agree. I do the same thing. It's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, some among us want to "get rich" off of every little thing. What happens if you die tomorrow and the customer needs reprints of the retouched photo in a few years? If they don't have a CD of the final art, they are out of luck.

Eric:cool:

Thanks Eric for your reply. I was hoping for more respondents. maybe some others will come around. I tend to think that there are others that might have other proceedures.

It depends on the customer and the reason for the restoration. A normal restoration, I don't keep the files once I have given them to the customer, both in print and on computer. (Keep it maybe a few weeks, till I'm sure their happy)

When I've done one of my funeral type restorations, I tend to keep it for 3 or 4 months, so that other members of the family can purchase copies if they would like.

Exceptions - long time customers that aren't very computer literate. I know they'll lose the file and want another sometime in the future. I've got some stuff I've kept for 3 or 4 years.

And I've never purchased a copyright for a customer, but my thought would be that it belongs to them.

Hey Kevin,

So far we have all of the restorations that we have done, on hard drive or on a CD in a customer file. After 3 years I would conitnue to keep them only if it is convenient for us. On a related note, we have not yet had anyone ask for a CD, but if they did we would give them one.

We have not yet purchased a copyright for anyone ...

Roger

I'm not sure I understand the point on the copyright question Kevin ??? A copyright release that has been obtained to do work for a customer is normally a part of the work under contract, paid for by the client, and would go as an attachment to the original. Most that I've obtained are one time rights so expire anyway. If, however, it was an open end assignment on a specific photo, it would be like a "certificate of authenticity" that as far as I can see would hold no value unless you are also holding some rights to further publication of the original.

I do believe I covered the other topics in that "wrong forum" post right! :-) In an abbreviated repeat, I'm a firm believer in the idea that no one should keep any of the customers "belongings" - negatives, CD or other means of duplicating the original until and unless you have a release from the client and we will not sub out any assignments to any lab, retoucher, artist or other service that does not agree to adhere to that ethical standard in a written policy or agreement.

Jim Conway

I'm going to toss out a few for consideration. The rule in conservation is that anything you do to an original must be reversible, yet we get in Dags and Ambros in here all the time that people (in this business) have taken out of the cases to scan - the result is sometime disastrous. How do set a policy for handling originals and what do you do when things go wrong?

Here's another common one: When you promise a "toned print" that looks like a historic sepia, or you offer to duplicate the "look" of other historic processes like tintypes, do you give the clients a "true explanation" of the processes that you intend to use and explain the differences including the lasting qualities? One of our primary exhibits in our showroom points up this bit of subterfuge in orders from other sources in our area - showing true gold or selenium tone prints along side of their ink-jet counterparts. It's very effective!

Lots to discuss here and I hope others will jump in on this - some of the ethics issues are easy to call as black or white but there are a lot of gray areas that call for some deep thinking.

Jim Conway

Perhaps this is being posted under the wrong section and should be under Education - in any event, here is the link that I think everyone that touches any historic photos should at least read once!

http://aic.stanford.edu/pubs/ethics.html

The AIC CODE OF ETHICS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRACTICE was years in the making and very applicable to photo retouchers and restorers who are working at any level now or those that are just starting out and contemplating offering their services to the public.

Jim Conway

The reason I keep a copy of what I've done is so that the customer can always come back for another print whenever they wish. I've never had a customer who wasn't happy for me to keep a copy locked in my safe infact they have been glad that there is a backup if they ever need it. Our country is prone to floods and bush fires and the backup in my safe is viewed as a safeguard if disaster strikes.

Jim's comments about being the customers "belongings" is certainly something to be considered and from now on I will ask if they want me to keep a back up for them.

Thanks for more good information Jim. I will read the AIC Code of Ethics and thanks for suppling the link. Probably have a lot of help for my yet undrafted Privacy Policy. You've given me more to think about.

I hope it can lead to more than just YOUR privacy policy Kevin, perhaps one that you can offer as an example to the group! I'd really like to see an association of Photo Retouchers and Restorers formed and there is a good chance that it could come from the people here.

Several years ago Doug said it was in the back of his mind, I don't know if it has moved up on his priority yet or not. The need certainly is continuing to grow and AIC, as valuable a resource as it is, sadly lacks direction in the "hands on" information that is showing up here but it certainly should be looked up to for the sense of direction on ethics.

Jim Conway

I like the idea of the association of Photo Retouchers and Restorers. I wonder what we need to do to get it started? I think it would get a lot of support and hopefully participation.

Let's see what I come up with before thinking about offering my policy up as an example. I do have a lot of experience in writing but none in writing a privacy policy.

Jim, I believe that the "sepia" tone the vast majority of people refer to is not gold or selenium toning, but the deterorative effect called sulfiding....a particularly serious problem with the Albumin process and to a lesser extent other processes as well. Confusing the customer by calling deliberate toning.."historic sepia"... is not exactly what I would call ethical, nor is it sepia in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Good point about the Dags and Ambros...I make it a policy to never remove them from their frames..period. That should only be done by experienced and highly trained Conservators.
In my business if the customer wants an "antiqued" look applied the photo is first identified as to the process used to produce it then the customer is informed of what the usual aging effects are for that particular process, then this is mimicked as closely as possible. Customers are advised on the correct way to store,display and handle their originals and copys even to the extent of giving them cotton gloves to handle them with if the customer has a large number of photos, as well as a realistic longevity for the copy. When restoring or retouching historic photos, nothing should be added. We simply clean up most of the scratches, the worst of the foxing etc., adjust tone and balance and thats it. NO Frankenpicturing....ie, taking parts from seperate photos to make one "complete" one.
As part of our service we provide the customer with a CD of the raw unretouched scan and a file of the finished product ready to print. Tom

We don't do restoration work for conservators or museums - nor do we work on the originals. We have not yet done work for collectors, our work has all been for the public to restore family photos. In our narrow slice of life ethics is pretty simple;

-explain honestly what we do, and what the current life exectancy is of the paper they choose.
-show paper samples for each kind of output.
-do reconstruction of the image to the extent that our customer wants us to, in a way that is appropriate to meet the customers goals.
-only use images for any purpose with the customers specific permission.

In my opinon, among the general public sepia is just a term for a brown colored photo. Beyond that it is up to us to educate the customer to whatever extent is appropriate for what their needs are (if we wanted we could give them a lot of info they don't care about - it is not their passion, they just want their photo repaired).

I am beginning to think that I must have been sheltered in my little slice of life, or this discussion would not even be happening.

What kind of bad stuff is going on that sparks this discussion?

Is work done for conservators and museums? I would think they would just preserve the originals ... or duplicate them as they are to preserve the image.

Work for collectors would not make a lot of sense, because the value would be in the original ...

Work from museums or collectors / historical societies and etc. for reproduction would make sense - but that would mean making the copy match the original.

I appreciate the seriousness of the discussion, I just don't quite understand the reality that this discussion reflects ...

Roger

Roger, Anytime an original photo is displayed there is deterioration of the image due to UV light, humidity, temperature. This is a well documented fact. In dealing with process original photos from the 1800's thru the 1950's many collectors and museums are beginning to display faithfully reproduced copys to protect the originals from unnecessary exposure.
This brings up the spectre of overly ambitious restorations which, while done with good intent, may result in the actual photo contents being changed. There is one incident I have personal knowledge of, among many, when a well intentioned individual replaced the Name "John Deere" on the hood of a photo of an old tractor, with "Ford", because the original lettering was vey faded. As this photo was of the first John Deere tractor to arrive in the area, an historically importiant event, I think you can see why this discussion is firmly based on real world situations and ethics.
When dealing with historical photos, the goal is indeed to match the original as closely as possible, even to the point of not repairing all the damage if in doing so you would change the photo contents in such a way as to render it inaccurate.
The majority of my customers appreciate being given info about proper storage, display, type of photo process used to produce their original and ant info about deterioration which we can give them.
As to value, there are, in my opinion at least two aspects to consider here. The first is the value of the original as a process artifact representing a particular photo process from a known time frame. The second is the value of the event/persons depicted. A copy relays the latter info quite well and as such has great value, especially as displaying it allows the photographic image to be shared/displayed without subjecting the original to damage thru display...
The reality is a matter of purpose...is this photo intended to be an accurate and faithful copy of the original or is it intended to be "better,enhanced, have things added to it" and so on.
Historic photos are usually treated differently from the latter, or should be at least....Tom

Good answer Tom

So you are saying that rather than have the museum that hires the copy/restoration artist policing what the standards are for the work, a mature industry has it's own standards that help raise the quality and awareness of the industry.

It seems that the museum industry would be well versed in their requirements, but historical societies or small neighborhood museums / community historical exhibit might benifit from this kind of help.

If a retouchiing/restoration association acts like others I have been involved in it should also be a source of continuing education and education for newcomers to the industry.

Roger

Roger, Exactly correct. As the technology of digital restoration continues to advance, the opportunities for mischief, either intentional or unintentional increases as well. Thus, it becomes necessary for the emerging Digital based retouching/restoration industry to either police itself or face the possibility of being regarded as not a boon but a bain ...........without a code of ethics and accepted standards this emerging industry will face increasing resistance and limited acceptance. Just my opinion though and not necessarly correct....Tom

Tom your assessment is accurate but it goes much further - the ethics problem is already out of hand and the impact is not likely to be on the museums and the type of people who call on conservators - those are the knowledgable buyers. The real loss will be everyone that looks at any book, magazine or newpaper with a loss of faith in what we have all come to know and trust - real photos.

I just posted a clip in Salon over the current flap on the Julia Roberts photo on the Redbook cover ...and in my files I have a copy of the TV Guide cover from Aug 1989 showing Oprah - only problem with that photo is that it was a composite using Ann Margarets body so Oprah would look thin. That was the start of the blatant early computer "enhancements" and it's continues to get worse every day.

The vets organizations are having problems with thousands of "False Warriors" claiming benefits using fake photos of their days in the service - and the list goes on and on! This is not really a "museum" thing, I think they are safe enough thanks to AIC and other professional organizations - but it's swiftly heading into something that can and will put "restorers" as an occupation so far below used car dealers that you will be ashamed to admit being a part of the group!

My personal opinion is that unless something is done soon to "separate" the ethical from the rest, it will be the end of what has been for well over a century a highly appreciated and respected occupation.

Jim Conway

To a degree ,the manipulation of photo content has been a problem since photography became mainstream, and, even when it was the provence of a few knowledgable souls, certain folks of dubious ethical orientation were not above "pulling a fast one" if there was economic incentive or publicity to be gained. An excellent example is the famous Civil War photo of the dead Confederate infantryman taken in the "Devil's Den" after the battle of Gettysburg.....it is acknowledged that the body and Musket were carefully posed for "effect"....
The epidemic of manipulated images by so-called professionals, for no other reason than to gain economic advantage or personal recognition is, as you say, threatening to seriously damage the creditability of anyone who engages in Restoration/Conservation or photography in general.
There is no way to totally halt abuses. Some folks simply do not care and will do as they please, ignoring the consequences of irresponsible action. Others will insist that there is nothing wrong with altering a photo to fit their conception of what it depicts.
Its a serious problem. Consider that all the models who appear so vivacious and perfect in Ads are images of people so grossly retouched as to remove the resulting image from the realm of reality...and consider the resulting problems , especially as regards young women who feel that if they dont look like these "Frankenpictured" digital freaks there must be something wrong with them...and the resulting semi-starvation and so on these impressionable people put themselves through as well as the mental degradation, trying to look like something which never existed and never will, causes untold suffering.
Professional orginizations are one way to help maintain and/or restore creditability, but in the end it is a matter of personal choice and a sense of responsibility which really matters...unfortunately today both seem in rather short supply. When I see major Newspaper and news service personnel, folks who are suppost to be Professional, using image manipulation to not just "enhance the dramatic content" but in doing so actually create a totally false impression, it leaves me with a rather sick and disgusted feeling....Tom

There has been some very good input to this topic. I am learning a lot. I still haven't had time to come up with a privacy policy yet but it will happen.

OK, I am now focusing most of my attention to a complete overhaul of my Web site. All the "Honey Dos"and remodeling of the family room are complete. Now I have to get back to getting the business components finalized. I am going to incorporate a "Privacy Policy" page. I have obtained a fairly good but generic privacy policy and will be modifying it to suit my/our needs. Anybody have any specific suggestions? I will publish the policy here prior to the launch of the new site, for input from you guys. I plan on using a Paypal shopping cart system which should somewhat limit my risk of devulging customer information.

It will probably take me more than a couple of weeks to make all the revisions to the site so we have plenty of time. I thought that maybe together we could come up with a very good policy.