Prevailing Opinion on Cropping/Fixing Old Photos

[NYCNorma]

I've been going through the rather tedious process of scanning old photographs in order to preserve them digitally. In general, I leave them as-is, but today I found myself tempted to crop and straighten several. I refrained while I debated whether I should (in my head). Finally, I came looking for a more experienced opinion.

Also, I have "repaired" photos for friends and family members as gifts, but I always keep the original. Is this a common practice? Does the condition of the original important to the history of the photo?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Interesting question .

My decision would be based on whether it is important to me to preserve the image as seen by the original photographer, or if I want to improve the composition and such, while still maintaining the memory. As far as touching up damage, I wouldn't have a problem doing it, because you still have th original, so no harm done.

 

[Derrel]

Sometimes cropping a photo to "improve it" results in removing things that would be interesting in a historical or family context. I inherited my grandfather's collection of his negatives, and his parents' negatives. When I went through and scanned them, I kept the entire frame. What was odd was that after I had positive images on my computer, and began reviewing them, I began to see things I simply could not see in the negative images...things like "where" a particular image was shot around the family farm...the sudden appearance of power lines and power poles in the early 1920's...cars with what were called "artillery wheels" (wooden-spoked wheels)...etc,etc. After I slogged through fifty of the best frames, scanning and printing them. I was surprised to find that many locations around the family farm revealed themselves at the periphery of frames...I could see tree lines...fence lines...buildings...the farmhouse's yard as it was in the 1920's, then in the 1950's, and so on. I was even able to locate some 1920's and 1930's fishing locations based on geographical features in the backgrounds of some wider-view images that were maybe taken from "too far away",so to speak. My vote is to NOT crop historical images if you wish to preserve an accurate representation of the past. Of course, with digital technology, it's easy to make multiple variations of an image at almost no cost. As far as repairing damage--it's important not to get carried away, and start cloning out facial blemishes, moles, scars, etc...leave the truth as it was...

 

[480sparky]

I would have no problem fixing things like tears, creases, blotches, stains, etc. But to take Great Uncle Urias and have him drop 100 pounds............ well, that's just not right.

 

[NYCNorma]

I would have no problem fixing things like tears, creases, blotches, stains, etc. But to take Great Uncle Urias and have him drop 100 pounds............ well, that's just not right.

Point taken.


Thanks for helping me think through it. I will leave the photos the way they are. (Derrel--Yes, I have many "around the farm" photos as well.)