RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: loord74 on Thursday 10 July 25 17:51 BST (UK)
-
I really want to know the opinion of the participants here about the usefulness of using modern technologies in restoration.
-
Hi Rami, Thanks for raising this as it is important to my personal involvement as a restorer here for over 17 years.
I have seen a lot of changes and advances in technology regarding the manipulation of photos on here.
It is a subject that is close to my heart and it saddens me to see historical photos restored to such extreme lengths that the results produce an image that could have been taken yesterday. Sometimes, less is more. I aim to make any restorations that I carry out, true to the era that they were taken.
I was once asked to remove a cigarette from a 1950s photo for someone, and pointed out that, that would have been the trend at that time, so I did two versions, one with and one without the cigarette .Future generations need authenticity for their historical photos in my opinion.
But each to his own. I have resisted restoring for some time now as the results that are being posted would make any of my offerings look inferior.
Carol
-
Thank you Carol for this contribution. I strongly agree with you on the necessity of preserving the historical sequence of restored images. I often go back to watch the restoration that I was doing here years ago, to really make sure of the development of the technologies that we are witnessing now. I strongly admit that sometimes there is no alternative to use these technologies to compensate for missing parts or to make them appear more accurate. Also, overusing them may lead to creation rather than restoration. Perhaps fair use and minimalism may lead to desirable results. All appreciation, Carol.
-
I totally agree with using what is available to restore old photographs. I stress restoring, a lot of old photos are in a very poor state of preservation. I am not too sure about some of the "improvements" where the subject has been improved possibly a little too much. Its hard to tell really because a photograph freezes the subject in that split second of time. Could be a bad photo of the subject or a good photo, unless you knew the subject you can't tell. Sorry for rambling on. I do think that the work on photo improvement I've seen on here is very, very good. I've done a couple of my damaged photos for my own amusement and have been reasonably happy with the results but I'm sure they could be better.
Ray
-
Ray
An important points You have raised were the poor preservation of images and the inability to identify what is missing inside it. To address these points, the option of using modern technologies will solve problems to a very satisfactory extent.
-
I agree with Ray's comment too.
Carol
-
Agree with your thoughts, Carol.
I don't like the 'over-cooked' photos - as you say, they lose their historic 'feeling'.
Sometimes using the modern techniques seem to change the photo so much it is hard to recognise the original person.
Wiggy.
-
There have been a number of threads on this topic over the last year or so, so I'm not sure why this has come up yet again.
One example that is worth reading is
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=877762.0
Gadget
-
There have been a number of threads on this topic over the last year or so, so I'm not sure why this has come up yet again.
One example that is worth reading is
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=877762.0
Gadget
This topic is a referendum and a vote, with the goal of letting those who use modern technologies and filters in the restoration process know whether they are welcomed by users here, or whether they are rejected. Based on the results of the vote, many matters will be judged.
-
This topic is a referendum and a vote, with the goal of letting those who use modern technologies and filters in the restoration process know whether they are welcomed by users here, or whether they are rejected. Based on the results of the vote, many matters will be judged.
By whom and for what purpose :-\
We all use various packages and the improvements to them over the years.
I remember (in the early '90s) when Photoshop was limited to one layer and very few tools. Over the years more and more filters and plugins have been added. Other specialist apps, including AI, have been introduced.
The problem is whether the results are a restoration of the original, using the available routines subtly and are sympathetic to the period in which the photo was taken or 'in your face' artificial constructions which are over reliant on the obvious picks from an AI 'archive' of possible eyes, etc. I have nothing against using AI apps if used subtly and in period. They are useful and time saving. It's the blatant use of such apps that result in a different image rather than a restoration.
I also feel that users should br told if AI is used to the extent that the image - facial features, hair, etc - are not from the original but what the AI app decides is the best match.
I referred to Peter's thread as it discusses these aspects.
Gadget
-
Thanks for the clarification, I'm not sure what your problem is with the voting Poll?What's the point of allowing users to create Poll here then?
-
Why a poll?
We all use modern techniques.
Those who ask for a restore, give thanks, etc.
add - as I said in my previous reply -
We all use various packages and the improvements to them over the years.
-
This topic is a referendum and a vote, with the goal of letting those who use modern technologies and filters in the restoration process know whether they are welcomed by users here, or whether they are rejected. Based on the results of the vote, many matters will be judged.
As a user I am very grateful for each and every 'restore' that appears in response to an image I post. They are all saved to my files, labelled with the name of the restorer, along with the original. I don't grade them, never discount any and try to ensure that everyone gets my thanks.
I share my files with extended family and their responses to the various restores of any one particular image vary widely. Some prefer results which look like a modern photo which could have been taken yesterday, some like the ones that still seem like an old photo but are a bit sharper than the original, and some say oh but even scratched I like the original, its real and we should preserve it.
I haven't answered the poll, but looking at the responses what I would say to all the restorers is:
no matter what your chosen tools are, please continue to restore and be proud of your skills and willingness to help.
Its not a competition, I've never yet (though may have missed it) seen a 'user' response which says so and so provided the best result and everyone else need not have bothered..
You will all please someone and they will be grateful.
Boo
-
Rami, I think you’re asking the wrong question. Not many people care about the process. They care about the result.
I think a better question is: What do Rootschatters want from a restoration?
I don’t profess to know what Rootschatters want, but I believe I can make a distinction between members of Rootschat and the general public. And then I can say what I would want from any restorer to whom I entrusted the job of restoration of one of my family photos.
Most members of Rootschat are serious about their family history—otherwise they wouldn’t be here. Genealogists are serious about detail. We spend thousands of hours researching that detail. We are trustees of our family’s precious history.
In 2016 I posted a question to Rootschat’s Australia board. After 200 posts from several members over 7 months that thread was paused. Yep, Rootschatters are serious historians!
An old family photo is not just an old family photo. It’s a source of family history. A very precious source. The adage, “ a picture is worth a thousand words”, is no less true today than it was when first used over 100 years ago.
But, to a genealogist, it’s only worth 1,000 words if the details in that picture are as faithfully preserved as the details in any other source used by that genealogist.
I try to remember these things when I’m doing a restore for someone.
So, if another restorer asked me the question—what would you like from my restore of this picture of your grandfather and his siblings?—I might put it like this:
“Please…Imagine Adobe’s next big thing, in collaboration with Elon Musk, is a drone that can go back in time and copy photos. That’s what I want. Failing that, I want something that is as close as possible to that, something that preserves all the original detail, the texture, the ‘look’ of the photo (as it would have been in 1919), all this, including the frame, so that it gives me (and more importantly, my grandchildren and their grandchildren) a ‘real’ picture of what people, life and photos themselves were like back then.”
Peter
-
Totally agree with your perspective Peter and you're a great asset to the board with your careful contributions.
I have been very grateful for any work done on my photos in the past, mainly colouring as it was beyond me, can manage myself to improve on some blemishes of the few old photos I have. Also have attempted a payback here by having a go on one or two damaged pics, appreciate how much time others have given to restores as it takes me ages and not good for my jaw as I tend to clench teeth!!
Agree with you too Boo, have saved on file all versions I received with thanks ... and I haven't voted.
Cheers all for each of your skills
-
Rami, I think you’re asking the wrong question. Not many people care about the process. They care about the result.
I agree with this.
What is important is the final result; not what you used to create it.
There is some confusion on this board about what is a restoration and what is a reconstruction.
I don't believe many people who ask for a restoration really want, or appreciate, a modern reconstruction, where most of the "history" of the original photo is obliterated.
-
I guess the final arbiter for any specific photo is the owner. If they are happy, job done.
Personally, to me at least, a photo has a 'soul' (kind of). Perfection can be a bit over-rated..... auto-tune or AI music anyone?
-
I guess the final arbiter for any specific photo is the owner. If they are happy, job done.
Personally, to me at least, a photo has a 'soul' (kind of). Perfection can be a bit over-rated..... auto-tune or AI music anyone?
Nice to see you here Handypandy :)
-
Hi Rami...... I still lurk ;D