QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Wed 10th March 2010, 5:18am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 10th March 2010, 10:15am)
QUOTE(trenton @ Tue 9th March 2010, 11:02pm)
on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!
Well, on the one picture of Pearl Harbour that she was so proud of, she had blotted out cables assuming they were scratches, and arguably if historic photos have blemishes, they should be retained as otherwise you are creating an image of a past where the technology was more advanced than it was. I'm surprised WikiMedia hasn't moved into colorizing the pictures (it probably has, thinking about it).
I noted some
questionable assertions she made in the caption on the image of the Lexington Class Battlecruiser when it appeared on the mainpage.
Of course she didn't respond.
Maybe that's one reason why she concentrates on images rather than texts.
But as I said-it is only a matter of time before some fellow wikipediot realizes that her
restorations are often really alterations and technically constitute original research.
Regardless of whether her "restorations" are "original research" or not, they hardly qualify as photographic restorations, as I have noted a number of times before. I may not know that much about photography, but even
I realize that the emphasis in true restoration work, whether it be photographs or artworks, is upon
preservation and avoiding
alteration. Professional restorers can and do get into arguments concerning when the use of a particular technique crosses the line from preservation to alteration. However, Durova, as she merrily photoshoops away, does not recognize that the line even exists.
Another thing that goes unacknowledged by Durova is that in the publishing industry, standard practice favors reproduction as true as reasonably possible to an original print. While cropping is considered acceptable as long as not done deceptively, alteration to "enhance" an image, as Durova does, is generally not acceptable. When it is done, it is usually done to a small detail appearing in the photo (such as a ring or a lapel pin), and the unaltered blow-up and the enhanced blow-up will appear together so that the reader can judge the interpretation for themself. Durova, by contrast, does her alterations for the express purpose of having her "enhanced" images appearing in articles in place of digitized images more faithful to the original positive image.
What Durova does with images is not that much different from what the Soviet government did in publications during the Cold War: they alter images willy-nilly according to their own tastes and as a matter of course. After Stalin, photo alteration was such an ingrained practice it simply continued on long after him. It wasn't just photos of communist leaders that were altered, but
everything. I remember during my college days seeing a book published in the Soviet Union on the US Civil War. The book was thoroughly illustrated and every photo reproduced in it was heavily air brushed in the traditional Soviet style. After seeing so many faithful reproductions of photos of grizzled men like Lincoln, Sherman and Grant, it was rather weird and a bit creepy to see their spruced-up Soviet counterparts. Whether it be due to simple ignorance or pure narcissism, Comrade Durova simply doesn't get it.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 10th March 2010, 10:50am)
I've not been following this at all.
My only questions is: any chance of Durova getting banned?
Ah no, she's too "important", as she repeatedly says
Indeed. She is a legend in her own mind.