Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography/Preservation of historical images
This discussion is being started with the goal of establishing a consensus among project members regarding what kind and amount of retouching of historical images such as the example should occur for images to be used in articles here on the English Wikipedia. Sswonk (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (The introduction was revised to help establish a timeline of previous discussions Sswonk (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC))
Related discussions and existing policy; please read first
[edit]| Original discussion from History of Photography talk page |
|---|
|
"Cleanup" of Daguerreotype[edit]I recently reverted[1] the placement of the right hand image above in the article John Quincy Adams. While I appreciate the effort I have major problems with the intentions and results of the editors who did this. The original daguerreotype image was so significantly altered as to destroy any historical context it possesses. The left hand original image was originally from the Library of Congress as can be seen on the Commons description page. These edits were made in the past two days. I am concerned enough about the potential for abuse to alert the member at this project, and I would like to know what your opinions about it are and if anyone has had experience dealing with such "cleanup" efforts in the past. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I am a hard liner on this whole process, I think anything that is done in this manner constitutes original research and can only be viewed as an interpretation of the work. My feelings notwithstanding, there are now more examples of this work cropping up. Here is the original request at the Commons "Graphic Lab School" (!) [2]—scrolling down on that page will reveal two newer requests. I think as long as these "restorations" continue to go unchallenged, many more will be done and the historical record will be diluted. I fear the consequences of an acceleration of this work once more people notice the photos that have been "fixed" so far. I don't know who to turn to or what to do to stop it, so please let me know if there is any recourse available. Sswonk (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[Bounce left] I disagree with the use of modern techniques to alter the historical records in this way: I want to see the original photograph from the Library of Congress, not what your requestor Connormah views as better looking. ¶ You may be in the lucky position of being able to see the original, but the closest [or not] most of us will get is either the LoC's digital reproduction thereof, or a reproduction in a book. Yes I agree that one should at the least (i) think very hard before "restoring" an image, and (ii) acknowledge that this "restoration" has been done. [Let's skip the quotes around "restoration" and variants thereof: these become tiresome.] However, it's conceivable that a restored digital copy presents the original print more faithfully than does the pre-restoration digital copy. I'd agree that this is unlikely, but it's worth at least a moment's thought. I'd be particularly interested in a comparison between these two files and a reproduction in a meticulously edited and printed scholarly book. ¶ Let's agree, though, that the unrestored version is more likely to represent the photograph. Now, is it desirable to process a photograph such as this in an effort to make the result more realistic or a better representation of what the camera was pointing at? (For the sake of brevity, let's make the dangerous assumption that the photographer aimed at realism, and put aside the question of what realism consists of.) ¶ I'm no expert in photo restoration, old emulsions, or gimping, but off the top of my head I can think of three things that people might do. First, the "removal" (replacement) of dirt, cracks, and other "noise". Secondly, bending the whatever-it's-called curve to "bring out shadow detail" and "unblow" highlights and so forth. Thirdly, more local fiddling in an attempt to compensate for the pre-panchromatic sensitivity. Now, I'd guess that most people would rush to approve of at least the first two of these. After all, it is, or sounds like, the still equivalent of what they've come to expect (or been brainwashed to expect) in DVDs. Moreover, their own family collection of holiday snaps and so on from color negatives will provide abundant evidence of deterioration in photos over merely two decades. ¶ So advising people, even thoughtful people, that restoration is not a good idea -- this is going to be a very hard sell. Can you point to a persuasive (thoughtful, not overly long or technical, non-strident) web page on the virtue of non-restoration? -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page
Existing policy on image integrity
Examples
[edit]Please feel free to add examples in support of your argument here, using the <gallery> tags as necessary.
John Quincy Adams portrait
[edit]
I recently reverted[3] the placement of the right hand image, or "JQA2", above in the article John Quincy Adams. While I appreciate the effort, I disagree with the intentions and results of the editors who did this. The left sidemiddle image, or "JQA1" was so significantly altered as to destroy any historical context it possesses. JQA1 was originally also retouched from the Library of Congress (LOC) as can be seen on the Commons description page. The LOC image is directly linked below.
LOC Digital ID: (digital file from original neg.) cwpbh 02619 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpbh.02619
LOC higher resolution JPEG version (129 kilobytes)
LOC uncompressed archival TIFF version (18 megabytes)
LOC full resolution TIFF version (79 megabytes)
--Sswonk (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick and non-technical statement of opinions: As is probably clear, I started this discussion after seeing the JQA1 image changed to the JQA2 image six weeks ago. I reverted and got into a short debate with the editor who had requested the retouching at Commons Graphic Lab School and who had edited the article to change the infobox picture. The result was the reinstatement of JQA1 as the infobox image. During that flurry of activity and subsequent debate I kept referring in error to JQA1 as the "original". The provenance if you will of analog and digital alterations dates to much earlier than JQA1 so my use of the word "original" was technically wrong, I simply meant "the previous version". For sake of argument the JQA-LOC image would be fine in the infobox in my eye. It is one of the earliest photographs of a U.S. president and as such has values that are independent of a desire expressed in the edit summary of Connormah (talk · contribs · logs) in his revert of my revert to the John Quincy Adams page, where he stated: "I think the cleaned one represents the image more clearly, without distracting elements." Beyond that, I would be welcome to assessing some alteration of the JQA-LOC image; I can even live with the adjustments made by commons:User:Jklamo although I think a much more faithful restoration is desirable. What I sought and still seek to oppose is work such as JQA2, which I think might be fine for a company selling coffee mugs that didn't care too much about quality but is an utter falsification of the image and totally unsuitable for this encyclopedia as used. I am merely an amateur but decent snapshot photographer; I have darkroom experience using production graphic arts cameras. I am deeply interested in U.S. history and, although it means barely a thing, I live a mile from where JQA was born. That's background, all of which was stated to disclaim any expert understanding of the History of Photography in a technical sense. I do however have many years of experience using Photoshop in an advertising and print production setting. I have learned much about the photographic preservation and restoration processes from the other discussions. My hope is that we can help to preempt the possibility of casual manipulation of photographic and other images on a large scale by putting our thoughts together to establish principles we can agree on that Mikaul is already starting to explain in more formal language than this. Sswonk (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Washington Pension Office interior
[edit]-
Original upload from LoC, with stains and library stamp -
Stamp removed, stains remaining
.jpg)
The right-hand, edited image was recently nominated for featured picture status and met with some opposition due to the staining at the top of the frame. No further edits were forthcoming and the nomination failed. Interestingly, reviewers were split between those who (a) were happy with the edited version as-is (although some disliked the editing already done); (b) would support only with the original file (on the left, above) prominently linked on the image description page and with no further editing; (c) would not support without further editing to correct the staining across the upper portion of the frame. My thoughts were expressed as (b) here.
I don't see what could possibly be gained in encyclopedic value from attempting to repair the staining at the top; it's actually interesting from the POV of early photographic processing. Although I do accept that this flaw conceivably makes it a weaker FP candidate, I would oppose an edited version as a destructive, rather than constructive edit, due to the need to "invent" detail in an area containing important information. Furthermore, in this particular case, I don't see how additonal editing could improve the image aesthetically. While I'm quite happy with the original edit to remove the logo bottom right (this appeared in a non-critical area largely devoid of encyclopedic detail) it's clearly important to provide a link to the original, unedited version, in the same way we reference primary sources for text-based edits.
Neither of these points currently form part of the guidelines for image editing at WP:OI. --mikaultalk 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Open discussion
[edit]- You realise, of course, that the vast majority of historic images are not photographs, but include engravings, lithographs, paintings, and other such works. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the vast majority of historic images are not glass plate rephotography of daguerrotypes. Hard cases make bad law, as they say. Durova318 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion here will hopefully lead us to a benchmark for all historic images. The Adams image just happens to be a photograph, one with an interesting precedence in terms of reproduction that should serve us well as one example, with others added as & when. It's a complex issue and rather than start it as it appears here I'm planning to reference and summarise the original discussion that sparked it off, along with links to related discussions, explanatory notes etc which will (hopefully) save loads of confusion and tangental arguments. --mikaultalk 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You do realise there's a fundamental difference between an engraving, and, say, a painting or daugerrotype that would make rules appropriate to the latter appallingly stupid for the former: There is no such thing as "historic damage" in a mass-produced work, since engravings, lithographs, and the like were meant to be printed hundreds or thousands of times. Any damage on such a work cannot be considered "historic". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do realise you didn't read the discussion I linked to, where I pontificate in tiresome detail as to the likely veracity of digital copies we have here compared to their analogue originals. The distinction you're making there is relevant only to verifiability. The sort of rules that apply to this project relate to digital reformatting, almost irrespective of original media types, in which case all of our scanned images can be assessed from a common perspective. Within this there are likely to be a variety of standards, depending largely on the type and quality of calibration, but the only fundamental differences are those between born-digital images and scanned analogue images. The argument is that image editing of the former requires a slightly different set of ethical guidelines to editing of the latter. The objective here is to establish if that is the case and, if so, what those guidelines should be. --mikaultalk 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, sorry, you're wrong: There are clear and obvious differences between editing an engraving, where there are hundreds of copies other than the one you're using, repair is pretty much always obvious, and thus the restoration goal should be to make it into the best possible print of that engraving, as opposed to a painting where none of the above apply. I own thousands of engravings. This discussion is being held at the History of photography Wikiproject, and I really think it's going to be a huge problem if rules for photograph modification attempt to be applied to all the other mmedia. Another example: Lithographs are made by using a random etching process to create pits that will hold ink. The longer glass is etched, the denser the concentration of pits. That means there's essentially no artistic intent in the fine detail, only in the averages. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- So the distinction is one of verifiability, as I said. Of course artistic intent is hugely important and if you have a perfect print of a faultless engraving your scan of that, a work designed to be reproduced, is much more likely to be a veracious copy than say, a watercolour, which isn't. Can we establish that I understand that distinction and move on? This discussion being in a photographic forum is slightly mis-placed, I'll grant you, but it is just a preamble discussion to see where we all stand.
The issue under scrutiny here would be better illustrated by a hypothetical engraving which has damage to the original block or plate, a print of which someone scanned and attempted to repair in Photoshop or Illustrator. The debate is basically over whether, and to what extent, those repairs should be made without concern for that original intent and historcial accuracy. Digital editing requires only readily-available tools and easily-acquired skills, making this sort of radical enhancement both tempting and viable. In most cases I'd imagine that concern doesn't apply to engravings but in respect of it's digital surrogate a scan of an engraving is no different to one of a daguerrotype or lithograph or any analogue medium that has been digitised. Of course they're not all originated the same way and consideration of the analogue source is a distinction that must be made almost on an individual basis, but once they're scanned they become the same medium: ones and zeros that are almost too easy to move around. --mikaultalk 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- So the distinction is one of verifiability, as I said. Of course artistic intent is hugely important and if you have a perfect print of a faultless engraving your scan of that, a work designed to be reproduced, is much more likely to be a veracious copy than say, a watercolour, which isn't. Can we establish that I understand that distinction and move on? This discussion being in a photographic forum is slightly mis-placed, I'll grant you, but it is just a preamble discussion to see where we all stand.
- No, sorry, you're wrong: There are clear and obvious differences between editing an engraving, where there are hundreds of copies other than the one you're using, repair is pretty much always obvious, and thus the restoration goal should be to make it into the best possible print of that engraving, as opposed to a painting where none of the above apply. I own thousands of engravings. This discussion is being held at the History of photography Wikiproject, and I really think it's going to be a huge problem if rules for photograph modification attempt to be applied to all the other mmedia. Another example: Lithographs are made by using a random etching process to create pits that will hold ink. The longer glass is etched, the denser the concentration of pits. That means there's essentially no artistic intent in the fine detail, only in the averages. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do realise you didn't read the discussion I linked to, where I pontificate in tiresome detail as to the likely veracity of digital copies we have here compared to their analogue originals. The distinction you're making there is relevant only to verifiability. The sort of rules that apply to this project relate to digital reformatting, almost irrespective of original media types, in which case all of our scanned images can be assessed from a common perspective. Within this there are likely to be a variety of standards, depending largely on the type and quality of calibration, but the only fundamental differences are those between born-digital images and scanned analogue images. The argument is that image editing of the former requires a slightly different set of ethical guidelines to editing of the latter. The objective here is to establish if that is the case and, if so, what those guidelines should be. --mikaultalk 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You do realise there's a fundamental difference between an engraving, and, say, a painting or daugerrotype that would make rules appropriate to the latter appallingly stupid for the former: There is no such thing as "historic damage" in a mass-produced work, since engravings, lithographs, and the like were meant to be printed hundreds or thousands of times. Any damage on such a work cannot be considered "historic". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion here will hopefully lead us to a benchmark for all historic images. The Adams image just happens to be a photograph, one with an interesting precedence in terms of reproduction that should serve us well as one example, with others added as & when. It's a complex issue and rather than start it as it appears here I'm planning to reference and summarise the original discussion that sparked it off, along with links to related discussions, explanatory notes etc which will (hopefully) save loads of confusion and tangental arguments. --mikaultalk 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the vast majority of historic images are not glass plate rephotography of daguerrotypes. Hard cases make bad law, as they say. Durova318 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What we happen to have in this instance is a mislabeled reproduction of a daguerrotype, which (NOR caveats aside) appears to have been retouched in the mid-nineteenth century reproduction. That's an especially bad starting point for a policy discussion for three reasons:
- The fact that it wasn't a daguerrotype wasn't identified until the discussion was well underway.
- Whose "artistic intention" does one seek to reproduce with such an image? Does one attempt to intuit the daguerrotypist's image or does on accurately restore the reproduction?
- This image is not hosted locally; it is hosted at Wikimedia Commons. Any policy adopted at en:wiki would have minimal actual impact. In particular, it would not stop Commons editors from doing bad edits and uploading the bad edits over the original filenames, which would then cascade to en:wiki without a blip on anyone's watchlist.
For these reasons I recommend marking this a historical proposal. Durova318 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I made it pretty clear that this is not a policy discussion: "(this is a discussion) with the goal of establishing a consensus among project [meaning History of Photography project with input welcome across the world] members regarding what kind and amount of retouching of historical images such as the example should occur"' and in my example statement I hope we can "help to preempt the possibility of casual manipulation of photographic and other images on a large scale by putting our thoughts together to establish principles we can agree on.". I personally am not seeking to have anyone regard this discussion as a "policy discussion". It's a starting point for a several step process that may lead to a policy discussion, but for now is an informal collaborative effort to assess benchmarks of good preservation. Regarding your ordered list,
- The word "daguerreotype" was repeated by me six weeks ago from the original caption of the JQA infobox image: Daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams in 1847 or 1848, by Mathew Brady. In the course of my quest for comments on preservation and this image you have mentioned a few times in other discussions the inaccuracy you point out here; I learned of the mistake in the caption, I corrected myself, and I have not referred to the image as a daguerreotype here or for quite a while previously in other discussions. Really, at this point bringing that mistake up is a bit of a red herring.
- My baseline is the LOC or other institutions' original free image which editors seek to improve. Knowing the intentions of long dead photographers or daguerreotypists is an obvious impossibility unless you're a ghost whisperer. To "accurately restore the reproduction" is much easier to do, lacking a medium or supernatural perception.
- Not trying to stop Commons editors, who can? Trying to give benchmarks for editors of this the en.wikipedia to look to when placing images from Commons into articles here. It's like MOS tries to guide excellence in prose and punctuation, not a direct filter of the much more loosely standardized Commons content as a body of uploaded work on the sister project.
- All of these statements are my opinion only, not a policy statement ready for a vote. As far as I'm concerned, nothing discussed here will be that. But these issues are important and complex and do deserve some discourse on a general rather than file-by-file specific level, hence our back and forth here. Sswonk (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Still don't agree with the premises. This is a bad idea. De-watchlisting. Adieu. Durova318 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Edit-conflicting here, sorry to pile in on top :) I would hope any proposal that came out of this would legitimise the sort of work you (Durova, SH) do and help others follow in the same vein. Although Sswonk's opinion is (he confesses) rather hard-line, this discussion absolutely is not an attack on all forms of historical image editing, on the contrary, it's a forum to establish where the line should be drawn based on typical editing scenarios, towards a codified standard of acceptable editing parameters.
I envisage something that would both rein in over-liberal attitudes to image editing and act as a set of criteria to mollify those concerned with image integrity. For example, usage-based guidelines, distinguishing between images destined for the artist's article and those (possibly the same one) destined for the subject's article. Another example would be establishing when (and whether) to desaturate RGB scans of monochrome images, and so on. There are currently no standards for this sort of thing apart from those informally arrived at though work such as yours, at obscure, transient forums like WP:FPC.
As for the Adams image, it provides an intriguing example of usage, where its historical photographic value (first extant photographic image of a US president) coincides with it's historical subject value in the same article – ie, do we go for polished image enhancement or photographic veracity? – I'd very much like to know your feelings on that. It also provides an interesting methodological parallel, with 19th copying being at very least analogous to our 21st century scanning. Might be interesting to apply any misgivings you have about the former to the latter, for example. Anyway, I was rather hoping you would be a leading light in that respect, rather than resist discussion of it at all... mikaultalk 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)- Well put, but Durova has been opposed to doing anything at all on en.wikipedia so I wouldn't expect her back. I would however temper what you wrote about my opinion to say it "was (he confessed) rather hard-line". I think it is important that this page have the links to the previous discussions but I fear I may keep having to defend against statements weeks old that I now have modified. To illustrate, I wrote today that I can live with JQA1 but feel better, more well-guided work is available to us if we are thoughtful and respectful and work together on the guidance. Is the "hard line" I have with turning a well made 160+ year old work into something that pleases modern desires at the expense of the original work, e.g. JQA2? Yes, I don't think that avenue is helpful to the illustration of articles in the encyclopedia. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry about that. We're in agreement over the Adams image and to use that as an example, it's not just the quality of the work done (which could certainly have been better) but the nature of what was attempted that's in question. However, while I question the need to replace (eg) large areas of missing emulsion with basically imagined or invented digital restoration, in some cases there's no material difference, ie no factual "elaboration", implied in editng, say, border detail or featureless skies. Maybe that makes me more of a moderate ;-) I've added an example that explains where I would personally draw the line; we could do with more. --mikaultalk 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well put, but Durova has been opposed to doing anything at all on en.wikipedia so I wouldn't expect her back. I would however temper what you wrote about my opinion to say it "was (he confessed) rather hard-line". I think it is important that this page have the links to the previous discussions but I fear I may keep having to defend against statements weeks old that I now have modified. To illustrate, I wrote today that I can live with JQA1 but feel better, more well-guided work is available to us if we are thoughtful and respectful and work together on the guidance. Is the "hard line" I have with turning a well made 160+ year old work into something that pleases modern desires at the expense of the original work, e.g. JQA2? Yes, I don't think that avenue is helpful to the illustration of articles in the encyclopedia. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Edit-conflicting here, sorry to pile in on top :) I would hope any proposal that came out of this would legitimise the sort of work you (Durova, SH) do and help others follow in the same vein. Although Sswonk's opinion is (he confesses) rather hard-line, this discussion absolutely is not an attack on all forms of historical image editing, on the contrary, it's a forum to establish where the line should be drawn based on typical editing scenarios, towards a codified standard of acceptable editing parameters.
- Still don't agree with the premises. This is a bad idea. De-watchlisting. Adieu. Durova318 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)