Scan or Photograph

[jacunivac]

I have the opportunity to do digital reproduction/restorations (and make prints) of 6 original maps drawn by an artist/cartographer during the civil war. I will see reproductions of the originals tomorrow and will have accesss to the originals if it's necessary. I know nothing more than the person I'm meeting with says they are in need of restoration. My question is should I scan them or photograph them. They must be scanned or photographed on site since the muesum won't let them out of their sight.

If anyone knows of a site where I might gain some much needed enlightenment I would appreciate it. This will largely be a photoshop restoration with some digital painting if necessary. The prints will end up being made on my newly ordered HP Z3100. It's an exciting opportunity.

I look forward to some great feedback from this talented group.

Thanks,

Jack

[Schewe]

Wait till you actually see them...if they are oversized (larger than most scanners) you'll prolly need to set up a copy setup and shoot them. Also note that if they don't lay flat, they might not want you to press them in a scanner (or behind glass). In any event, you need to SEE the maps to decide.

[jacunivac]

Thanks, I'll report back tomorrow evening.

[jacunivac]

I have in my possession the reproductions of the series of 6 original lithographs by E.B. and E.C. Kellogg. They were Currier and Ives' biggest competitors. I read an article by a collector of lithographs that there are some people doing chemical and direct painting restorations of some prints and that it's a fairly substantial and costly endeavor.

I decided to restore the first one by scanning and using Photoshop. My client justs wants good prints made true to the originals. After showing him the first one he was ecstatic. This client has many original prints and quite an expensive art collection but he is as interested in the history depicted in these prints as he is the value of a collectors item. He said, "If you can't enjoy them because of their condition why not have them restored and reprinted." I like the way he thinks.

Does anyone have a comment on digital restoration/reprints versus hands on restoration of the original.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Jack

[Geoff Wittig]

A basic rule of thumb for book restoration/preservation is to do as little as possible, because a lot of techniques intended to restore printed items are eventually shown to cause more damage. I presume prints/lithographs are subject to the same rule.

If you make a high quality digital scan or reproduction photo of the original lithographs and restore them, the originals are still safe & sound while the owner can enjoy the "new" version without worrying about destroying something irreplaceable by spilling a beer on it.

[jacunivac]

Geoff,

I agree 100%. This battle over restoration or authentic reproduction on a 1 for 1 basis reminds me of the battle between digital and film photographers. The film people think the digital dudes are sellouts to some extent just like the restorers think the authentic reproduction people are creating something with no value.

The client I'm working for wants to mount and display the restoration/reproduction prints because the originals are in such bad shape they are almost unviewable. He will keep the originals in a protective case and can show them when he wants to.

He asked me if I thought putting 21st century chemicals and retouching the original with modern day inks meant it was still an original? I said no! He said, there you go!

Authentic Reproduction (What others have to say)

"The reproduction of the treasures of our past at the highest levels of quality, authenticity, and scholarship."

"A reproduction is a line-for-line copy of the original object using the same primary and secondary materials."

If an object does not do that, it is not a reproduction. It is either an adaptation or something else

The term "authentic reproduction" is more than a slick marketing phrase.

So, now if he spills a beer on it, I will print him another one.