photo repair (not restoration)

[DJ Dubovsky]

I had never even thought of it before I got into digital restoration. Now I see how easily things can be done digitally that in the physical restoration would seem to be next to impossible. I guess cracks were one of those questions. Another one was the counterpart to cloning lost image details. It's just mind boggling to me the results they can achieve and I must admit I am in awe. It's something so easily done digitally but I can imagine it takes alot of talent to actually reconstruct image detail on the original.
DJ

[Lampy]

Painting conservators reconstruct major losses often but they have many layers of paint to do it in and can use a similar media for reconstruction. It is very different with photographs. You can't just recreate a loss with the same materials because of the process involve. There are however many ways to physically repair loss not just by toning. I think most photograph conservators use a more painterly approach to recreating losses when they do restoration work, I usually do. But it could be possible to digitally reconstruct the loss by reproducing it and infilling (attaching) the reconstruction into the lost area. But integrating the two print types can be difficult. I'm not saying this is the best idea but it's something fun to think about.

Personally I like to take a damaged photograph and do what I can to preserve it. If there is extensive physical damage then I will suggest digital restoration especially if the client is planning on hanging the piece (I'd rather see a copy fried by light then an original). This allows them to save the original and have a pristine piece. Also if I can clean and repair the piece before I scan I can get a better image to start with and have a lot less digital work to do. But I don't recommend this for everyone.

Getting back to saving the original....I think there was another discussion on this site about archiving the original vs. the digital copy. You always want to save the original. It is your best version of the information. Quality goes down with each generation (that is why it is better to work with a negative then a print if you can). The digital copy is great to have as well and it should be kept incase something happens to the original but there is a lot of debate on how archival it truly is.

There are so many more ways to loose a digital copy. How many people out there didn't convert their 8 tracks to cassette tape and later to CD? Or who has old floppies that they can't use anymore but wish they could get the information off. Alot can go wrong with digital information. A marker can ruin a CD, we can change formats and just not bother to convert the information. A harddrive can get fried or it can be damaged from a virus. A disk can be wiped clean from a magnet. Not to mention this media is suseptible to all the same threats as the photograph (temp, RH, flood, fire and so on).

Wow that was a tangent! Sorry about that. I get started and I don't stop!
Blah blah blah!

--Heather

[DJ Dubovsky]

Tangent? Hey that's what this forum is for so feel free to get carried away as much as you want.

Interesting idea of doing a digital copy of missing parts and apply them to the original. Seems easier than trying to airbrush in the details even if you have to go through painstaking efforts to match up to the old photo.

You made a good point about archived material being lost through changes in technology and disaster of course and each time we copy we loose a little bit more of the original. I am even considering copying all my vhs home movies to DVD when available because I know they won't last forever but I will also loose quality when I do. Those and my photos are the first things I try to protect during hurricane season. What a loss that would be.
DJ