next »

Total Members: 1579
New This Month: 8
New This Week: 2
New Today: 0

OPR Biloxi Trip

Bright Eyes and Pigtails

Christmasgirl

Old Building

[Chuck]

My name is Chuck Norcutt from Endwell, NY.  I'm a new volunteer and have just recently received my first image.  Unfortunately, almost no sooner did I get it when I found out I'm going to be traveling fairly extensively for the next month and won't be able to work on it.  I'm a retired photographer and such travel is not typical for me... just bad timing right now.  But I did work on it a little and in the process and after a little research I ended up generating several questions which need answers before the image is finished.  For purposes of discussion I've uploaded a downsized version of the image to my own web site where you can see it here:
<http://www.chucknorcutt.com/OPR/RotertJ24_11_8x10.jpg>

I first posed these questions by mail with Victoria Walters.  She suggested I take it up with a distribution coordinator.  Since the image came from Hannie's gallery I also posed them to her and her comments follow later on.

So, take a look at the image using my link above and consider:

[1] The first issue is the very prominent "proof stamp" at lower left which appears to be from the firm "Woodward & Woodward" which, my research tells me, was a photographic firm active from the late 1800s to about 1940. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwood_%26_Underwood>
What I first thought was an ink stamp, on closer inspection, seems to have been done with a pin punch, ie; the original is punched full of tiny holes to form the text.  On high magnification most of these holes appear as a white ring (depressed hole edges) surrounding a black dot (the actual hole).  Assuming I have the name of the firm correct the "UNDE" at far left is missing from the first Underwood's name.  This could be as a result of the copy photography but I believe it more likely that it was poorly punched in the first place and was never there.

So the question arises what to do with this proof mark.  As a retired portrait and event photographer my instinct is to remove it but Victoria tells me that is likely a no-no.  She wondered if I could restore the missing lettering.  I could but not without widening the image which she also tells me is a no-no.  If it's to be left there I would leave the text as is but adjust the individual "pixels" that form the letters so that they are of more uniform appearance.  I suspect that what we see on this image is really an artifact of the lighting during the copying.

[2] The backdrop at left and top left and upper right.  It's not clear to me whether the black areas at left are part of the original photo or are an artifact of the copying with the print being curved and/or tilted off-center.  Initially I was not even sure that what I was looking at was the photographer's backdrop or flowered wallpaper in the house.  But I do believe it is the photographer's backdrop since it seems to be draped over the woman's right shoulder and upper arm with a crease in the cloth extending from near her shoulder to a point above her head. That requires a belief that the photographer's placement of the backdrop was truly haphazard. But I guess I can believe it if some of the photographers hired by Woodward & Woodward were something like the Olan Mills of the day. :-)

Regardless of how the black edges got there I assume it is my duty to fill them with the backdrop and will do so as well as filling the damaged area at top right.  But the question in my mind is how to go about replicating the pattern in the backdrop which is very much out of focus and very indistinct.  Or maybe its indistinctness is a blessing in disguise?  Do we know that flowered backdrops were common in those days?  Is it possible that there is another Woodward & Woodward photo with the same or a similar backdrop that is more clearly seen?

[3] Lower right corner.  The sloppily placed backdrop did not cover what appears to be a furniture leg below the man's left elbow.  Again, as a portrait photographer my instinct is to fill that with something that hides the very bright and distracting leg.  What I'm asking is how much license do I have (if any) to make this into something the photographer should have produced in the first place?  Despite Woodward & Woodward's reputation I'd have been incredibly embarrassed to present this proof to a client.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Those were my questions and concerns.  Hannie commented as follows:

"... I would have loved to have seen these posted on the OPR forum.  More volunteers can join and help, there is a wealth of knowledge available!
 
The black edge along the top and left side are not part of the photo so the background can be extended to that area.
 
As for the text, it looks ugly but it is part of the photo and may be significant to the owner.  The best thing to do is to make 2 versions of the same restore: 1 with and 1 without the text.  The owner can then decide which one he/she favors."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, that's where it stands today.  I have uploaded a 3-layer PSD file with my minor fixes for use by whomever is next assigned if they'd like to continue where I left off.  Although I'm not likely to be working on this image again I am very much interested in whatever comments and suggestions y'all have.

ps:  I thought I was a fair PhotoShopper.  But when I look at what some of y'all have done I'm speechless.  I hope I can get there someday.

Chuck Norcutt
Endwell, NY

[Tess (Tassie D)]

Hi Chuck and welcome to the forum. I would do 2 versions of the photo personally.
I agree with you on the proof mark being offset right from the start and the backdrop almost looks like it was tucked behind her arm to hold it in place.
I'd do one just restoring it as original and the other could have the backdrop uncreased and maybe remove the proofmark?

[Chuck]

Thanks for your response.  I hadn't thought about removing the crease from the backdrop.  The more I think about it I agree that two completely different restorations should be done and let the owner choose.  The first would be a straight restoration to simply fix the damage and make the original look new.  That's the harder one.  The second would be much easier and would derive from the first and turn the portrait into what Woodward & Woodward should have produced in the first place.

Chuck

[Mhayes]

Hi Chuck, welcome to OPR from Kansas. Great you have joined and sorry to see you leave so soon.

It would be easier for us to view if you could have your image within your post and at the very least make your link so that one can click on it instead of having to copy and paste it for a search.  See below for what the photo looked like before cropping.

Please leave the proof stamp as that if part of the original and also gives some history. As to making a second copy without the stamp; I am opposed to that since it changes the original.

I would leave the text as is but adjust the individual "pixels" that form the letters so that they are of more uniform appearance. I suspect that what we see on this image is really an artifact of the lighting during the copying.

You could be right about the lighting during the copying, but from what I'm looking at appears more to be  discoloration from the flooding than our lights. Here is what the original looked liked before it was cropped and you see the damage. It also looks like this was torn off from the proof sheet and yes, the black on your right is the poster board it was laying on for the shoot.

 

[3] Lower right corner. The sloppily placed backdrop did not cover what appears to be a furniture leg below the man's left elbow. Again, as a portrait photographer my instinct is to fill that with something that hides the very bright and distracting leg. What I'm asking is how much license do I have (if any) to make this into something the photographer should have produced in the first place? Despite Woodward & Woodward's reputation I'd have been incredibly embarrassed to present this proof to a client.

OPR’s purpose is to restore photos to their original look as best we can and not to retouch to give the photo a better look. You judge the very bright and distracting leg without a really good grasp of how the proof looked originally and whether it was caused by the flooding. We are restoring family's memories and not disparaging the photographer's skills.

Anyhow, that's where it stands today. I have uploaded a 3-layer PSD file with my minor fixes for use by whomever is next assigned if they'd like to continue where I left off. Although I'm not likely to be working on this image again I am very much interested in whatever comments and suggestions y'all have.

Chuck that is nice for you to forward your work, but uploading a 3-layered psd file will make a huge file size that would make downloading a real pain. You may send a flattened jpg version if you want.

Enjoy your trip.

Margie

[smceachron]

Hi All,
I had the same problem with that type of lettering and took it out.  It is hard to distinguish what is appropriate and not appropriate to retouch.  I had a photo returned to me as well.  I thought I was taking out the darkness and discovered that it belonged in the photo.  I love doing this and hope like you to become a great contributor. ~ Sandi