The Restorer's Responsibility

[lilsip]

I recently attended a lecture on civil war-era photography, excited at the possibility of meeting people who need restoration work done. I was terribly disappointed, however, when the speaker (a historian) answered questions about restoring old photographs.

Basically, she said (1)That old photographs of any sort should only be handled/scanned once every two years (that is one scan- no more), or they will be ruined.
(2) That one should never use a "cheap" scanner. Not sure what qualifies here.
(3) That doing anything more than a simple curves adjustment would be historically irresponsible, as you might alter the truth of the image.

Now I feel that not everyone can afford to pay a restorer who owns a thousand-dollar scanner. I also feel that these images could be lost forever if they sit untouched for fear of "ruining" them, but they could be saved through the wonder of modern technology.

Has anyone else run into this kind of purist attitude? What are your opinions?

[Doug Nelson]

It's a matter of perspective, I guess. I can see their concern about the scanning, considering they're looking at hundreds of years in the future and a scanner is very bright. I guess they idea of using a highquality scanner is so it doesn't need to be rescanned later on because of a poor-quality scan.

And I can see their POV about historical accuracy. However, for most restoration work I don't think accuracy is particularly important, as they're usually done for sentimental reasons instead of academic rigor.

[byRo]

We had a little discussion in this thread (after post #17) that you may find interesting.
Basically, it's the customer's call - not yours.

For pure historical accuracy, it's true that just about anything you do (outside the simplest level adjustment) will alter the image in some way.

But for most old-photo-I-found-of-Grandma-in-the-attic type work the customer will want a picture that looks like it was taken yesterday, and won't accept you leaving a bit undone because you couldn't be certain if the shoe had laces or not!

...and Welcome to RetouchPro

Rô

[Jaime]

I think this issue is an open question (at what point the restoration must be stopped?) not only for photography, but also for other arts like painting. In the last years, the restoration of some of the masterpieces (with the recover of some unexpected vibrant colors) has been a matter of discussion in the academic world. For some of the purists, this type of restorations goes further beyond of what a true restoration must be (apparently they want to preserve at some level the damage caused by the natural age).

[lilsip]

Originally Posted by Gary Richardson

My only comment here, is that the guidelines from Jaime's link refer to archival images, where the motives for restoring may not be the motives of a client.

Context is all. An archival picture is a historical document, and retaining its integrity is of prime importance. Whereas a restoration done for a client may not have to stick so rigidly to such guidelines.

This clears up a lot for me. Thanks, Ro!

[lilsip]

Ha! That lady had no idea what she was talking about when she said you needed an expensive scanner. Here's a quote I found while browsing the hardware forum...

"WHAT SORT OF SCANNER DO YOU NEED?

We need to ask ourselves two important questions:

1.) What do you want to scan?

a.) Prints: This is easy: just get the cheapest flatbed scanner you can find, and if you want quality, just pick up the cheapest EPSON you can find. See about the middle of this page where I suggest the current one. Even the cheapest flatbeds FOUR times the resolution you need. You are lucky, I probably just saved you a few hundred dollars."

[Doug Nelson]

There's a lot more differentiation in print scanners than just resolution. In fact, as implied by your quoted post, resolution is the least common denominator nowadays. But there's also noise, mechanical distortion, color accuracy, calibration, dmax, sweet spot, bit depth, and more.

[lilsip]

Thanks! I didn't know anything about those factors, and I'll be sure to look up some info on that.

[Kraellin]

doug is quite right; resolution isnt the biggie any more. scan lines are the biggie for me these days. my current one will often show up scan lines and i'm currently rethinking the whole scanner issue. at first, i thought it was the paper, but under magnification there are no such lines or grain in the print. it's the scanner, plain and simple. the scanner is a cheapie, a sort of testing the waters purchase, and looking back i wish i'd taken more time in looking before buying.

K.