Charles Conlon Fakes, Baseball Magazine Stickers & A Brief Tutorial

[Forever Young]

Here is the before and after photo. The first is where I purchased the photo not knowing for sure if I could clean up(actually I assumed no). However, the paint was water soluble and I was able to easily remove. For the record, I did not trim but cropped out scan to show what it could look like. If I framed, this how I would frame out.
So... I am interested in what other peeps think about trimming and "cleaning up". To me, I justify removing stuff because I want to see original work of art and simply removing whAt was added later. Trimming to me is different as you are actually taking away from the original print. I am Weird...I know this Thoughts?
I wish I could find the original negative or a copy of this image anywhere as I would piece the upper corner of the copy when framed.

PS: either way, my watermark is prettier no doubt.. GOSPEL.

[Lordstan]

I think the clean up debate is very interesting. I have often struggled with whether or not to not only clean up images, but even so far as whether to send for restoration. To Ben's point, if they are pieces of art, isn't it reasonable to clean and restore them? After all, if the art world is ok with cleaning and restoring Michelangelo's, The Last Supper, why wouldn't it be OK to clean and restore a photo that is far far less valuable?
I asked a similar question earlier this year about the 8x10 Burke photo I bought. The overwhelming response was to not restore it. So far I haven't as I am spending my money on photos, but I haven't fully decided.



What about this one? What would you do?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I think the clean up debate is very interesting. I have often struggled with whether or not to not only clean up images, but even so far as whether to send for restoration. To Ben's point, if they are pieces of art, isn't it reasonable to clean and restore them? After all, if the art world is ok with cleaning and restoring Michelangelo's, The Last Supper, why wouldn't it be OK to clean and restore a photo that is far far less valuable?
I asked a similar question earlier this year about the 8x10 Burke photo I bought. The overwhelming response was to not restore it. So far I haven't as I am spending my money on photos, but I haven't fully decided.



What about this one? What would you do?

Mark,

I remember the thread about your photo. I believe I said or at least thought do not restore. Not because it wouldn't look awesome but because it would most likely cost a lot for your photo(more coupled with what you already purched it for than what it would be worth restored).

That said, the second photo you posted could probably be cleaned up by you at zero cost(at least get a lot of it off). That white looks like it might be water soluble and pec12 would prob take off some of the other things. Ironically, this was my photo that you purchased in hyee and I didn't remove at the time to gain money reselling I do it for me and let others decide for themselves.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PEC-12-4OZ-F...item3ce20d77e7

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Scott,

I remember the thread about your photo. I believe I said or at least thought do not restore. Not because it wouldn't look awesome but because it would most likely cost a lot for your photo(more coupled with what you already purched it for than what it would be worth restored).

That said, the second photo you posted could probably be cleaned up by you at zero cost(at least get a lot of it off). That white looks like it might be water soluble and pec12 would prob take off some of the other things.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PEC-12-4OZ-F...item3ce20d77e7

Ben,
Thanks for the link. I was about to ask what people used to remove the grease pencil, etc. I assume, that will take off the water soluble stuff as well?
Mark

[drcy]

I don't mind the ink, crop marks and gunk being removed from across photos. That stuff can be unsightly and masks the photo image. I can see why people do that.

If this were my Greta Garbo photo, I could see removing the grease pen crop marks.



Though I do admit I have a big thing against trimming. Call it a personal bias if you wish.

[drcy]

Duly note that I commented about the type system because someone specifically asked me a question about the type system in this thread. I posted about trimming because people were talking about trimmed photos. Whether or not they were off the subjects topics, I didn't start either topic.

Besides, half of what I post is off topic. Everyone knows that.

[Runscott]

Okay, so we know why thieves add stamps to the back of a good Conlon print - in this case to 'assure' the buyer that it was a real Conlon, but why did 'the real' Charles Conlon add stamps, and what was the purpose of each particular stamp he used? (Same for his signatures)

It seems a bit random, and maybe that is the answer.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Ben,
Thanks for the link. I was about to ask what people used to remove the grease pencil, etc. I assume, that will take off the water soluble stuff as well?
Mark

The ink and dirt can be removed by pec-12(not water based stuff). The efficient with water soluble stuff (use.. well.. warm water cloth). There is some grease that I do not touch.. can't remove(I don't have the patience for). Your second photo(that I owned) you can def improve the look yourself if you wanted to.

[Leon]

Rhys and Ben,
Thank ya'll so much for sharing this information with the community. It's appreciated by all.

[Econteachert205]

Is this an example of good photo bad stamp? It is blue I believe.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eddie-Collin...item3ce8cb2d62