Talk:Digital photograph restoration

I have an addition to this post I need reviewed. Arwilliams12 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Structure
I was thinking that the article needs to have the following six sections: 1. definition of digital photograph restoration (expand upon the existing definition), 2. overview of restoration process, 3. agents of deterioration, 4. preventative conservation, 5. ethical considerations, and 6. digital image restoration applications for other museum objects. Breaking this into six sections would mean each one of us does two sections. I don't mind the photo examples listed in the article. It is true they may need additional explanation but we would need to be careful not to get to into the minutia about listing every specific kind of treatment for every kind of situation.--Gleasona (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That structure looks good. I think looking at the Wikipedia Article about the Conservation and Restoration of Photographic Plates could help you to see how the article could be written. There are already too many images in this article, so adding text will be important, and you could keep the current images, you don't need to get rid of anything, but you should have them in sections that describe why they are important and what we are looking at in them, what has been changed from the damaged image and the restored image? Rose Daly (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Need section on how to preserve the "new" digital images LambertMJHU2019 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)LambertMJHU2019

I like the use of the photo examples but feel that they need more explanation LambertMJHU2019 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)LambertMJHU2019

I think it is a great idea to divide the sections up amongst the group for the final project; but before we do, lets all contribute to this talk page and discuss our "ideal structure" for the Wiki entry laurencohenpgh (talk) --Laurencohenpgh (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we need more photo examples with damage types/digital remediation, and accompany those images with detailed descriptions explaining what the reader is seeing laurencohenpgh (talk) --Laurencohenpgh (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the outline should include (1) a definition/explanation of digital photograph restoration, (2) types of photographs that can be digitally restored, (3) agents of deterioration that contribute to photographs needing to be digitally restored, (4) overview of how to properly handle historic photographs, (5) digitalization equipment that is used during restoration, including hardware (scanners/digital camera) and software, (6) specifications associated with digitizing photographs, such as file formats/resolution/labeling/master image/copies/etc., (7) metadata standards, management, and sustainability laurencohenpgh (talk) --Laurencohenpgh (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Within the ethical considerations section I will be explaining the ethical debate its self as well as pointing to examples for clarification.--Gleasona (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The section on metadata standards, management, and sustainability will more than likely involve an mentioning the usefulness of collections management systems for museums and their role in providing information to conservators.--Gleasona (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Our final outline will include the following sections (1) Definition/Overview of Digital Photograph Restoration (make more robust/revamp)- ML (2) Types of photographs that are digitally restored- LC (3) Handling and storage of photographs (pre/post digitization)- LC (4) Agents of deterioration- LC (5) Restoration tools/process (hardware, software, file formats)- ML (6) Ethical considerations- AG (7) Metadata (management, standards, and sustainability)- AG laurencohenpgh (talk) --Laurencohenpgh (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I see some good ideas, but reliable sources are needed as the basis of any content—which takes research and work! And, in this encyclopedia, we must guard against violating WP:NOTHOWTO. P.S. Lauren, you should sign your comments with ~ so that the date of your posts are automatically generated beside your name. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To new editors: Encyclopedias should present facts and information objectively. Generally, they don't have the word "should" in the articles themselves. Example: rather than say what standards and policies "should" be, present the specifics of particular standards or policies. Avoid vagueness and wordiness. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed section on tools
In general, we should not list specific programs or tools, since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog. The sections also used unreliable sources such as blogs, the vendor's own websites, and press releases. Please stick to only high quality sources, especially when dealing with content that may tend to promote one vendor over another. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Scope and content
Especially for the raft of new editors: Various recent additions to this article aren't specifically relevant to digital photograph restoration and should be deleted. It's like you're using this article as a notepad rather than considering what an encyclopedia reader would be looking for: specifically relevant, useful facts. Rather than summarily deleting them myself, I'm bringing some of the problems up here first, as a courtesy, to help you avoid wasting more of your time. Examples: If you can find reliable sources that specifically apply these vague topics (ethics, copyright, management) to digital photograph restoration, it's fine to add it. I'm leaving non-compliant material in the article for now, as it seems to be part of a school project, but improper material will not remain for long. When is your assignment over? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Copyright law controls five distinct uses...". This list is already in the Copyright article and shouldn't be duplicated here. (now replaced with internal link)
 * "Factors for determining fair use". This list is already in the Fair use article and shouldn't be duplicated here. (now replaced with internal link)
 * "Access". This entire section has nothing to do with restoration and should be removed.
 * "Metadata Standards, Management, and Sustainability". This entire section, including subsections, does not present information specifically to do with restoration and, if it remains vague, should be removed.
 * Any language such as "... are advised to obtain advice from councilit's spelled COUNSEL ..." and "museums must rise above the bar..." and "it is recommended..." are not objective and should not be in an encyclopedia.
 * Generally, much of the material that has been added recently is long-winded, vague, rambling, and at best marginally relevant to digital photograph restoration.
 * Some of your proposed content may possibly be relevant in other articles, such as Digital asset management, Collections management system, Digital rights management, etc., but not here in Digital photograph restoration. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying RCraig09 instead of deleting any more, let us work on it through the day today (12/15/19) and on Tuesday (12/17/19) if you see something that shouldn't belong, you may address it. Thank you for working so hard to keep Wikipedia a quality resource. We are indeed new to Wikipedia and are trying our very best.Gleasona (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Recent massive, unsourced additions re the causes of photographic deterioration are barely relevant to digital photograph restoration that is the subject of this article. At most, the causes of deterioration might rate a brief mention as mere background information, and in any event should be credited to reliable sources—which almost all personal blogs are not. See WP:RS. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The comments applied to 'deterioration' also apply to the sections on handling, enclosures, and environment, etc. I can't see why you're using this article on restoration to "explore" these topics. You should not use Wikipedia as your notepad. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you should delete any material that does not pertain directly to digital photograph restoration . I can imagine leaving, as introductory background, a couple of brief and concise sentences about what causes the defects that necessitate restoration. However, as I see it, the vast majority of content recently added, just doesn't belong in this particular article. I'd rather you delete it yourselves rather than making someone else do it. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing and footnotes
To new editors: You should learn the basics of sourcing if you want to continue on Wikipedia. At the very least, understand:
 * Use reliable sources. Personal blogs are almost always not considered reliable. If it's not properly sourced, it shouldn't be included in the first place.
 * Learn citation formatting. See Help:Footnotes, at the very least Help:Footnotes
 * Don't just plop the URL between symbols.
 * Do a proper citation: after clicking "Edit", look just above the edit box, click on "Cite", choose from the "Templates" drop-down list one of (web, news, book, journal). Fill in the the boxes before clicking Insert.

—RCraig09 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)