Photo cleaning disclosure

[71buc]

I was curious what others thought about cleaning the editorial marks from photos. Should this work on the photo be disclosed by a seller? I regularly remove these marks from my own photos, however, I do disclose that work when re-selling because I am uncertain what the long term effects of water will be on the photo paper and emulsion. I don't think cleaning away editorial markings is altering the photo as it is removing a substance that is not original to the photo. It improves the look of the photo, however, so does removing undesired marks from vintage cards which is a highly controversial subject. If I was to drop more than $100 on a photo I would want to know if it had been restored. The value of photos is increasing and that segment of the hobby is rapidly growing. Photos are now being graded and slabbed will grading qualifiers follow and should they?

[Leon]

I believe in full disclosure no matter what. Personally, I think the marks on the back of a photo add greatly to it's character and I will pay more for ones with period markings. I only have a few photos in my collection, and the main one is the only thing on my wall, a 1903 Horner AL Composite, which I have shown several times. It has had a light cleaning and a few tiny touch ups...and if I ever sell it those things will be fully disclosed.

[Runscott]

If you aren't adding anything to the item, I don't see the issue; however, I also would mention that the photo once had crop marks, and that those have been removed. Why not mention it?

Also, as Leon mentioned, the crop marks show the interesting history of the photo, so I wouldn't even try to remove them unless they made the photo look dumb; for instance, I had a photo with a black circle drawn around the player's head - I would remove that. Also had a photo where white crop paint had x'd out a player who added to the photo's composition - I would certainly remove those.

Thanks for sharing your technique previously.

[71buc]

I agree with your rationale for the removal of editorial marks. As I indicated I do it for the very same reasons. I often buy photos with those marks at discount because they are not as attractive. The editorial paint is water based and as such is easily removed with water. The reason I am asking about disclosing the restoration of such photos is that we really don’t know the long term impact of removing marks that have been there for years. Below is an 8X10 photo of Al Simmons I purchased for 14.99. As you can see it cleaned up very well and looks great for such a meagerly priced photo. At 14.99 I will take that risk but always disclose that I have restored the photo prior to selling it.

Although the paint is hardly visible on the front of the photo, if you look at the reverse you can still see the impression of where over the years the paint has changed the paper. My concern is that there is little information that I can find on the long term effects of adding water to vintage photo paper especially when it has already been changed by the editorial paint. In the future will the emulsion that was covered by the paint begin to bubble and flake off the surface?

Due to this uncertainty if I was to buy a Type 1 Joe Jackson that had been restored without the seller disclosing such work I think it would be unethical. My own attempts to remove these marks are amateur at best. There have been horror stories about what happens to antiques and art when they fall victim to unskilled amateur restoration. Often the damage does not become apparent for years. Food for thought?

[drc]

Disclose it. I suspect disclosure won't have much effect on sale vale.

[Runscott]

Mike, I am so glad you posted this most recent example. After your original post about how to remove the marks, I went through all of my photos and found a few that had black, rather than white marks, and didn't think black could be removed. Now I'm going to try to use your technique to get rid of some of the uglier black marks.

Thanks again!

[horzverti]

Excellent food for thought Mike. Like you, I often remove the editor's ink on photos.

I believe removing ugly ink greatly adds to the photo by subtraction.

If one was to add ink to cover a blemish...now that would be a different story.

A few years ago I spoke with a retired library archivist regarding removing touch ups, shading and other editor's ink. He said that many photos used in old newsrooms (where I obtain most of my new stuff) probably have had ink placed, removed and then replaced over the years. He went on to say that even saliva was used to removed excess ink. Yuck ! His opinion is that if damage from removal of ink was to occur to photos that are 75+ years old, we would have seen it already. After speaking to him I began looking for photos where I can see remnants of removed ink. To my surprise, I found a lot of photos that were touched up, cleaned and retouched. I found no sign of deterioration near the removal areas. Most damage I see to photos is from clumsy human handling.

Regarding disclosure of ink removal...I'd like to hear more of your opinions.