Using modern techniques and filters in restoration

[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.

 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

[loord74]

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?

[Gadget]

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.

[Tickettyboo]

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

[McGroger]

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

[mare]

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   

[Neale1961]

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.

[Handypandy]

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?

[loord74]

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