Historical Accuracy - photo restores

[scandude]

Unsure if this is in the right place or not nor if the question has been asked before - I did a look around but not that much, sorry if this has been asked before though.

I have looked around at all the photo restores, re-colours etc and it hits me that in years to come when someone (say our great grandkids) look at these restores would they assume the picture is an accurate reproduction of their ancestors?

Some of the photos have the backgrounds replaced with 'fake' backdrops, which in some way removes important historical references to places and people, and when the 'original' picture disappears or deteriorates beyond recognition the restore is the only copy left.

Any comments, experiences welcome or link that already discusses this subject

[Treetotal]

You make a good point and realistically...photos should really only be coloured if the colours are known as some photos do have these details on the back. I do colour on request and I endeavor to be as historically correct as is possible...but it is only a  "Best Guess" and as such is a piece of fiction and should be taken as such and references made that it is a resorated/coloured copy.
Many people like to see what their ancestors looked like in colour but I think they are realistic about the lack of accuracy with hair and eye colour when it is not known. Many have seen likenesses in their families after a coloured version has been done.
I prefer my own photos in their natural state unless damaged...but..am happy to add colour if that is their wish.
Carol

[Ruskie]

Do you mean if they look at the restores here on rootschat or if they have been saved on someone's PC or included in their family tree? If they find the restores here, they will be able to see the original digisitsed photo at the beginning of each post. I imagine if the restores are found in files on a pc, the scan of the original photo may be there somewhere too. If you are talking many hundreds of years into the future who knows what medium will be used then.

I think with the less realitic restores especially those with fake backdrops it will be pretty obvious to future generations that they are not true to life. With technology advancing so rapidly I'm sure there will be better programmes around which will lead to more realistic photo restores, so our efforts today may be derided or seen as amaeturish. Not many restores include fake backdrops, though on occassion there are some requests for removal of unattractive features in the background. I can't recall any that have removed anything that can be seen as important from the background. Surely there would still be references to historical images to be found elsewhere if anyone cared to look for them.

I don't think we need to worry too much about it.

[Treetotal]

Interesting input Ruskie from a "Non Restorer" I find that most people do their best to try to give people a better version than what they have and they have the choice whether they use the restores provided. It is after all a free service and one that gives a lot of pleasure to many who would otherwise be stuck with a dull, faded and damaged photo....or pay a hefty fee for a professional job.
Carol

[Pels.]

I think with the less realitic restores especially those with fake backdrops it will be pretty obvious to future generations that they are not true to life. With technology advancing so rapidly I'm sure there will be better programmes around which will lead to more realistic photo restores, so our efforts today may be derided or seen as amaeturish. Not many restores include fake backdrops, though on occassion there are some requests for removal of unattractive features in the background. I can't recall any that have removed anything that can be seen as important from the background. Surely there would still be references to historical images to be found elsewhere if anyone cared to look for them.

I don't think we need to worry too much about it.

In the majority of cases it isn't the programme that does the restore, it's the ability of the restorer and how they use it, Ruskie. I would hate people to be given the impression otherwise.

I might be wrong but I think 'scandude' was also referring to when people request a total change of background, or items (including people) to be removed. For example, recently taken images where someone might not like their grandparents taste in wallpaper and ask for something more to their own liking. They then end up with something more inclined to resemble Chatsworth House or Woburn Abbey. Or better, a quick trip to Paris when they've never left the country they were born in.

There are people on RootsChat with the expertise to place anything anywhere, it would be hard for a layperson to tell the difference. The poster has made a very valid and interesting point.

Pels.

[Ruskie]

Apologies Treetotal and Pels. I probably did not explain my thoughts very well.

 I am not suggesting that the restores here on rootschat are anything less than excellent and professional - I have seen some real miracles performed on many many old photographs. What I was attempting to suggest is that in the future there may be image enhancing software that can improve old photographs even better than is physically possible today. I have also seen restores where someone has a bit of fun and places the subject in a different background, mentioning that they are doing so for fun.

I think that in the future people will realise when they are looking at an enhanced image and also realise that there may have been other changes to the original.

I was not aware that the OP was only asking for input from those active on the restore board and I did not intend my comments to offend.