restoring heavily retouched photographs

[wayne naughton]

How far do you go when restoring old photographs that have been heavily (and badly) retouched? I'm pretty sure they don't have any historical significance, otherwise i'd be quite content just to clean up the dust and scratches. But, being the obsessive person that i am i found that i couldn't help myself 'tidying' up some of the original retouching. Am I doing the right thing?

BTW, the client is gonna get a bit of a shock when he gets the finished restorations.... he wants the original 8x6's blown up to 12x10s and he's going to find some serious defects in the original negs that will stand out like golf balls in the enlargements.....

everytime i do one of these jobs i swear that i'll never do another, there's no way you can charge them the correct price.... i'll end up spending a day on this for about fifty bucks... not to mention a whole lot of aggravation.... <G>

wayne

 

[Charles Webb]

Hello,
I personally have no problem with cleaning up restorations.

If one hopes to make a satisfactory enlargement of a smaller retouched print, it is often necessary to do what ever you have to do to deliver a quality product. If it is an item of historical value, make a copy negitave and work from that, never the original. Do nothing to an original negative that cannot be undone if necessary. I personally would never alter in anyway a customers negative or glass plate. I heavily recommend using a copy work negative.
For me the same goes for any print, I will not work on an
original negative or print without a copy negative of it and a good work print.

Charlie........................................

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Wayne,

For me, the (original, bad) retouching is part of the story, and should be left intact.

Cheers,

Roger