Bob Rosinsky restored an 1870s tintype. Wow, that's quite a before and after pair, isn't it?
I'd definitely display the original alongside the restored version, myself.
Mike
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Sweet.
Posted by: ctein | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 03:44 AM
Just wondered if you would flip it horizontally or keep it true to the original mirror image?
Posted by: David Anderson | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 03:52 AM
As for flipping the image: v-e-r-y interesting dilemma! The handedness is characteristic of a tintype, but if you are making a print, that's no longer a tintype. Maybe you'd compromise by inkjet printing the scan onto clear film (a digital negative) and then contact printing that, ink side down? (grin)
I have a few tintypes among old family photos - not the oldest, but definitely the most vivid. Hand-clipped corners, bubbled and corroded in places. Lovely. Quite a bit more theatrical too, than other (presumably glassplate) prints we have from the same era. Two young brothers about to separate, off to seek their fortunes.
I wonder: might the photography tend to have been less staid, at these tinplate businesses, to reflect the cheaper process?
Posted by: richardplondon | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 05:16 AM
Thanks for posting this, Mike!!!
Posted by: Bob Rosinsky | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 08:37 AM
Wow, that looks like a lot more than 4 hours work.
Posted by: Jack Nelson | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 09:14 AM
Nicely done. I have two from my grandfather's albums that I will have to attempt to restore.
Posted by: Keith I | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 09:43 AM
For a while there, I thought he was going print it as another tintype. Or even better, restore the actual original tintype.
Posted by: toto | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 09:54 AM
I wondered the same thing as David Anderson, and to his question (would you flip it?) my answer would be, yes. At least that's what I've done with self-portraits taken in a mirror.
Posted by: William-porter | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 10:59 AM
Seems more derivative than a restoration to me. But if that's what the client wanted great, just not my taste. Also, it's nice to see someone seeking a professional's help on that one.
Posted by: Chad Thompson | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 12:17 PM
impressive work.
Posted by: Barb Smith | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 01:25 PM
There is a portrait studio soon opening on Valencia street in SF that will be specializing in tintypes:
http://uptownalmanac.com/2011/06/portrait-studio-and-retro-camera-shop-coming-soon-valencia
Posted by: Ted | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 02:17 PM
David, given that he's already significantly altered the original photographer's intent by removing the tinted cheeks, I'd say he should go whole hog and flip it.
Posted by: James Sinks | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 02:28 PM
In the article he states that he would normally flip it, but the person paying the bill wanted it left reversed.
Posted by: KeithB | Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 03:04 PM
hmmmm, and what about the copyright issues, wouldn't it be better to go back to the photographer and pay for a new print? I mean, fairs fair isn't it?
Posted by: David Boyce | Friday, 01 July 2011 at 09:30 AM
Sorry David, that won't work - you would have to ask the photographer to re-shoot the picture! Tintypes are original negatives not prints. Tintypists didn't need to worry about whether or not to produce limited editions.
Posted by: Nigel Johnson | Saturday, 02 July 2011 at 08:07 AM
Hi Nigel, are you positive about it being a negative?
Posted by: David Boyce | Sunday, 03 July 2011 at 12:23 AM