Fixing the Fix
Restoring old photos is something I like to do … the satisfactions of success and frustration of failure run the gamut of extremes.
In recent weeks, I've begun to refine my process and I am pleased with many of the results; fixing/restoring some of those I previously considered "fixed," has given me some conflicted feelings … as follows:
• Shall I continue fixing the heretofore "fixed"? There are literally HUNDREDS! That's a long-term project after all.
• Fear of SUCCESS … by that I mean … do I fix/restore (where possible) any given images to the point that a hundred-plus-year-old photograph looks like it was just taken? After all, it's the dirt and blemishes and faded appearance that gives these oldies their special "charm".
Here's an example: A "fixed" fix.
http://a-gurmankin.pixels.com/featured/1-ja-roebling-bridge-c-1915-vintage-photograph-a-gurmankin.html?newartwork=true
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Original "fix"
http://a-gurmankin.pixels.com/featured/ja-roebling-bridge-c-1915-vintage-photograph-a-gurmankin.html
© A. Mac/A.G.
Tags
Who is online
530 visitors
In the "fixed-fix", as you can see, I add a frame/border and a caption. IMO, for marketing purposes, this has a distinct advantage in terms of print sales.
In terms of leasing such an image to publishers, since they mostly want to do their own captioning and/or additions of borders, I submit the basic image without captions, borders or my © notice (which the publisher places on or near the image).
Please -- I am very much interested in all comments -- positive, negative and constructive.
NOTE: The "Original Fix" is actually an improvement on the Original Slide. The "fixed fix" is thus a Third Generation iteration.
I love both-- the one with the border is somehow a bit more pleasing, but I can understand why publishers may not want a border...
But I love them both! You do such a good job in restoration!
Mac,
I think that you may be wrong about the market for the pictures that look like they were taken yesterday. While there may be a certain charm about what seems like an older picture, the market for the "fixed ones" is also likely to be quite strong. You might want to offer the two on a side by side basis, with the purchaser being able to take either one or both at a small discount. Relative sales might enable you to judge what the market prefers, particularly if you're able to add an explanation of the differences to the sales site.
As for whether you should make the third generation iterations at all, ask yourself what the original photographer would do. Since your third generation version is far beyond anything he could have possibly done with the equipment available to him at the time, the question becomes, "Would the original photographer have used better equipment to make a more modern picture if the equipment had been available?" My guess (and remember that it's only a guess) is that, if computer enhancement had been available to the 1915 photographer, he would have used it or any other innovative technology he could have gotten without hesitation.
You're not the only one who loves these old pictures. I can think of at least half a dozen of us here who look forward to every one you put out.
By the way, the caption mentions Roebling as the architect (probably the son of Washington Roebling, who built the Brooklyn Bridge) and the location as Covington, KY. Don't know if you are further aware of it, but it was built between Covington, KY and Cincinnati, OH across the Ohio River. It might actually still be there. Can't be sure, though; I haven't been in that part of Ohio in many years. Marsha might know if it's still there.
My guess (and remember that it's only a guess) is that, if computer enhancement had been available to the 1915 photographer, he would have used it or any other innovative technology he could have gotten without hesitation.
Thanks for giving me that perspective, TTGA!
Ansel Adams manipulated his negatives in the traditional dark room; imagine what might have been had he had Photoshop!
I will be posting some of the Fixed-Fixes … despite questioning myself on these, I am content (so far) with them.
Thanks again for your analysis.
By the way, I have a Brooklyn Bridge shot … I'll be doing a fixed-fix eventually.
Mac,
I just checked Google Earth and that bridge is still there and still in service. That could be an interesting historical comparison; modern pictures showing all changes right beside the original photo from 100 years ago.
Question.....
Are you exploring the use of the histogram curve on Brightness and Contrast? I've always found that using the curve adjustment abilities gives much finer control than trying to adjust them independently.
Just a guess on my part but it is reminiscent of my results by using that technique....
And it's absolutely beautiful.....
Are you exploring the use of the histogram curve on Brightness and Contrast? I've always found that using the curve adjustment abilities gives much finer control than trying to adjust them independently.
For grayscale, I rely more on LEVELS rather than the histogram (which I do use with color images) … being able to work independently with highlights, mid tones and shadow areas gets the whole restoration going; there is a protocol I've come up with that works well (most of the time).
Much appreciation for the input.
Ok, I can see that.
Generally I use the histogram to get close, and levels to fine tune.
But working in greyscale, levels is probably the better approach....
Do you scan as greyscale or scan as color and convert?
Do you scan as greyscale or scan as color and convert?
I scan in RGB and desaturate … in doing so, rather than being limited to the 256 gradations from white to black through gray, I get a number of tones that look gray but "feel" like something else.
But images that begin as grayscale, I scan as such; they can be colorized if I so choose.
Based on Uncle Louie's pictures of the era, I can guarantee you that the photographers of the era would have used any tool at their disposal to get the "look" they wanted... Uncle Louie used just about every trick imaginable...
All that technology is beyond me, I do my own adjustments by the seat of my pants, so to speak. However, my opinion here may differ from others. I see the basic photo as having faded somewhat from what might have been original contrast. I believe that the "refixed" version is what the photographer would have wished for had his equipment, film, chemicals and procedure allowed for it, and perhaps due to the age of the photo, maybe that is what it once was. The subject matter is what indicates the era of the photo, and in cases where the subject matter is no different between "century old" or today's photo - so be it. Rendering it faded does not IMO enhance it.
The "fix" is in … for now anyway.
Sayin' "good night" … more fixed-fixes tomorrow.
Over my head. I take pictures and what comes out, comes out. For me the mere image alone is enough to bring back the memory.
However I am glad you have the touch for restoring old pictures so the rest of us can enjoy them and so they re preserved. Sort of like restoring old movies.