Can you vote on this? I found the first photo of me with a plant, a tiny tomato plant to my left, from when I was only one and half years old. I want to use the photo in the Perfume From Your Garden book, so I scanned the original 1950s-typical-blurry-Kodak-brownie-camera photo at 600 dpi and sent it to a ‘restore’ service online. Three revisions, I still don’t like the ‘restored’ one. I think they just cranked up the contrast and it looks fake. Should I use the original on the left or the ‘restored’ on the right? I need some objective opinions on this. T
Thanks in advance!
Anya, I would go with the original…authenticity, etc..
I agree. Too much contrast in the restored version. And yes, authenticity.
My preference is the untouched photo 🙂
As I am a graphic designer, I can say that it is impossible to make blurry photo crisp again, while to do it vice versa is easy. But it is possible to make original more clear and not loose that authentic charming feel, but it takes time, pixel by pixel, restoration process similar to the fresco restoration, just done digitally. Of course, it cannot be cheap as it is time consuming, so majority now go the easy way adjusting contrast, sharpness and some other quick clicks 🙂 So I vote for the original.
I would help you, if it is not urgent, because I don’t have the right soft with me right now (will have in 2 weeks, vacation.. 🙂
Just noticed – faded part of the fence (lower right corner) was cloned from that part with white stick and left with a “ghost” stick 🙂
Although I enjoy the misty or hazy effect of the original, I feel that the picture of the right is much clearer and easier to absorb. I get frustrated when I am trying to view an old photo that is fuzzy….unless it is for purely artistic reasons. Also, my guess is that once it is printed on paper the restored photo would translate much better. My experience with photography is that pics just don’t translate that well when printed on paper. Either way…both are charming!
The original. It has more “feeling”…. like a fond memory should.
agreed; the one on the left.
definitely the original 🙂
I like the picture on the left – many of us are using to seeing older pictures that look like this. Plus the blurriness at the edges is a little dreamy which I like.
I’d go with the original. For one reason, it’s slight blurriness seems akin to perfume, the way it gives off some silage, blurs boundaries a bit.
its not it’s on my first comment (grrr, it’s an error I dislike and I made it!_
I agree with the majority, the original is the better choice. Just has better feel.
I agree that the original is by far the better of the two. Looks like the restored version was done rather poorly and in haste. I suspect that someone made a few quick adjustments and never stopped to look at the final version and/or that they quoted you without considerating the time it would take. That being said, you might want to try again with someone else doing the restoration. With a little care and a bit more time I think a better job could be done.
The original is fine, I don’t think it will print very well and may look like a blurrrr, so I would go for the restored version as it has more clarity and say that it is restored in the book. You might want to have the small image of the original as well so people can see or feel the energy in it.
Alternatively you could take the original and have it professionally scanned with colour correction with at least double the dpi as 600dpi is not very high 🙂
PS The scanned version looks grainy, so if you can get it professionally scanned at a super high res thats all you may need. The restoration service can only work with the image you give them and a low res, is probably a waste of time thats why you haven’t got what you really wanted. I have found you really do need to work from High res to get results.
I vote for the original low contrast image. Suits the Sweet child….softer….
Thank you everyone, SO MUCH for your comments! I was against the original at first, mostly because of the glare/flares, and the graininess, but so many of you love it, I’m convinced it’s just the way to go! Two nice people have offered to very, very slightly tweak the original, so they are, and let’s see if they keep the spirit of it.
For those who wondered about the res: I originally scanned it at 600dpi for the original restorers, and I think the high res put some lines in the image. Then I scanned it at 300dpi, and it’s much better. That’s what the two volunteers have. They’re working for perfume, lol!
Such a nice community I have around me, I am very thankful for you taking the time to comment on an ancient photo. I do love the photo, lines, and blurriness and all, because it does reflect my early love of plants 🙂
I like the restored one, it’s very sharp and clear.
I like the restored one