2009/9/17 Carcharoth <[email protected]> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 2009/9/17 Carcharoth <[email protected]> > > <snip> > > >> And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly > >> the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be > >> controversial. > > > > Matter of interpretation. Take this portrait I restored: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin2.jpg > > Can you tell what I filled in? This is the original image: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin.jpg > > > > Skill involved, sure. But no artistry. > > > > Adding a hand was an order of magnitude easier than adding the missing > parts > > of his pants, by the way. :) > > Thanks for those examples. An excellent restoration. I'd love to > discuss the missing hand in more detail some time, as that is a good > example of something I think can be controversial. You absolutely have > to make clear when that sort of thing is done, and how and why. >
Ah: "Restored version of File:Andrew Curtin.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin.jpg>. Dust, scratches and tears removed. Parts reconstructed by using other half of stereophotograph[1] <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpbh.01289> Histogram adjusted and cropped." Examples of when the line is crossed between adding things and > creating something new, would be good. I know of quite a few examples, > but will have to come back to this later. Mainly digital composites > and colouring ins of old photos. > Agree 100%. Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
