 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-14-2012, 07:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Has anyone attempted to remove editorial marks from photos? I don't mind them when they don't effect the central image. However, I have passed on a number of otherwise beautiful photos. If you have removed them how sucessfull have you been, did you damage the photo, and what process did you utilize?
|
|
#2
10-15-2012, 09:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Mike:
I haven't tried it but have heard that they (I believe) just wipe off.
|
|
#3
10-15-2012, 09:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Editorial marks
I look forward to the responses to this
|
|
#5
10-15-2012, 01:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It depends on which type of editorial "markings" you are talking about. There are the black or red grease pencil-type markings that can be wiped off with a soft cloth (or so I'm told, never tried it myself).
Then you have the "cover up" markings that are basically like paint on the surface of the photo, usually white, gray or black. I haven't heard a reliable method of getting that off without damaging the emulsion surface of the photograph itself. If there is a way to remove that paint without damaging the photo, I'd be glad to hear it, because as others have said, I've passed on a few photos that would otherwise be nice shots because of such editorial cover-ups. Maybe there needs to be a photograph conservation / repair thread that covers these topics (as well as how to remove that doggone black scrapbook paper that is often firmly affixed to photos).
|
|
#6
10-15-2012, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I've only had it not work once, where there was an "X" over the face and it would not remove. I've never damaged a photo. Links to what I've used : http://www.adorama.com/CHPEC12.html http://www.adorama.com/AM61002.html http://www.amazon.com/PEC-PAD-Lint-F.../dp/B0001M6K24
|
|
#7
10-15-2012, 08:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for the great information I will give it a try.
Quote:
|
|
#8
10-15-2012, 08:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ryan, just to be sure I'm clear, have you used this to remove the paint-type editorial applications, or only the grease pencil/marker type markings? I read through a number of the reviews of the product (also available on Amazon), and most seemed to be glowing so I'll probably pick some up to try. I'm just wondering what types of removals you have had luck with.
|
|
#10
10-15-2012, 09:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good to know. I'll definitely pick up a bottle of it and give it a shot. Thanks for the info!
|
|
#11
11-17-2012, 12:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I spoke with a local photographer who has spent many hours in the dark room prior to the digital age. He stated he is unaware of any reliable safe product to remove editorial markings withot damaging the emulsion on photo paper. There are products that are made to clean negatives and slides however he said those are solvents and will damage photo paper. He recommended using a photo archivist but related that unless the image is extremely valuable such services are cost prohibitive. I showed him this picture of Chief Bender I purchased for $32.99. He indicated that the paints on the photo were likely water soluble and could be removed with warm distilled water and a Q-tip. He said that any excess water should be dabbed away quickly to prevent absorption.
I took a leap of faith and gave it a shot. The editorial paint melted into the water and transferred to the Q-tip which I moved in a circular pattern. The water left on the photo clouded pretty quickly. To prevent absorption I removed it by gently dabbing it with a non-abrasive pad of tissue. After all of the editorial marks were removed I used a blow dryer to dry the photo. It curled slightly after drying. I placed it in a book and stacked weights (40 lbs) on top of it. The following day I removed the photo and it had returned to the previous shape. Obviously this method is very similar to card soaking. I don’t know if this process will result in long term damage to the photo that will be revealed over time. Nonetheless, at least for the moment, I am pleased with the results. I seldom buy photos with such markings but it seems that they can be purchased cheaper than unmarked examples. Based on the results of this process I will likely be more willing to buy them.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| c1915 Boston Red Sox Photo ID Question | glchen | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 9 | 09-27-2012 01:17 PM |
| Pitching Machine Photo Question. | D. Broughman | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 10-03-2009 08:19 AM |
| Gaynor and Dent Photo Auction Live 9/18-Ends 9/25 | scgaynor | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 09-18-2009 07:12 PM |
| Gaynor and Dent Photo Auction is Live Ends 9/11/2009 | scgaynor | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 1 | 09-11-2009 10:36 AM |
| T206 Chance, 1917 Zeenut, 1893 8x10 photo Minor league, Heilmann wire photo | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 03-15-2007 11:57 AM |
Hybrid Mode
