So this week I focused on then engraving and vignetted photographs. After getting extremely frustrated with the engraving task I finally got it to work and I am quite satisfied with my outcome.
As an art historian visual evidence is a major part of my research. The various editing techniques we have learned must be used sparingly and with the right notations and intentions otherwise one may loose the very backing the evidence was supposed to give. Colorizing can be fun, but should be used cautiously in regards to research.
Something that was brought up last week in class that I want to address is the use of partial images. Sometimes all that one has is partial drawings or photographs of someone of something. It was asked how much one can restore a photograph. I think that as far as using an image as evidence the only restoration we can do is cleaning up scratches or spots. If there are chunks missing either do not use that image or use the information you have within the image and later if other documents are found that may change an interpretation, go from there. In art history we are not always lucky enough to find completely whole wall engravings or paintings, but if we were to add or complete what appears to be a missing line we are misrepresenting the information we have. Sometimes that means if further scientific advances allow for more details to be uncovered interpretations may change. Otherwise the interpretation and analysis is done with as much of the image as one has.
I commented on Theanna‘s and Annie‘s blogs.