Quantcast
Faith

Designer adds dimension to photograph of Mormon leader Oliver Cowdery

Comments

Return To Article
  • lqqk pocatello, ID
    March 15, 2013 9:59 p.m.

    It is beautiful and brings the man to life more than the original does. Thanks to the artist that did the painting and the artist that improved the faded image. We are blessed to have this technology.

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    March 14, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    Thank you to the researcher for the careful work done. It is good to have the original as well as the enhanced photo. Both contribute to the body of scholarship.

  • flower47 Romford, Essex
    March 14, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    I don't think that the colour version is any improvement on the beautiful original, but if people like it, that's up to them. Personally, I think that the original Daguerreotype prints speak volumes of intensity and depth without the need for colour. They are beautiful in their own right and a wonderful remnant of our photographic past.

  • Leonard Wood Fairfax, VA
    March 13, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    The restored image is a fine effort that goes a long way to helping the viewer see Oliver Cowdery as he really was, as contrasted with the marred and monochromatic image of the daguerreotype. It's unfortunate that Why Not of Sacramento would rather wallow in unnecessary bitterness over this.

  • whynot67 Sandy, UT
    March 13, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    You have two separate images here. The black and what is a restoration of the original where the flaws have been carefully removed and the photo is close to its original state. The second is a colorization of the restored photo. The colorized version is not the restored photo. I personally believe that it accomplishes the intent in bringing the past more to life with a color photo and as long as the original is not destroyed then there is nothing wrong with adding color,

  • johanngoethe SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 13, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    if one thinks the "restored" image hideous, one should not view that image, but just the original. Me thinks one is generally speaking anti-Mormon.

  • Dante Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Since we have no negative of the photo from with to produce a "restoration," we at least have a few posters to supply us with their brand of negativity. I guess misery loves company. The photoshopped version has not destroyed the original, so nothing was lost as a result of the processing. Both photographs inform me far more than what I had known previously. I greatly appreciate the effort.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    March 12, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    Can they not leave anything in its original state? Why do they have to try to improve on something that doesn't need improving?

  • tamarasw San Diego, CA
    March 12, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    There is nothing hideous about the restoration. However, I will say the restoration is more of a painting (portrait) than a photograph. I actually prefer the original because it is more true.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    March 12, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    How can anyone say that restored picture is hideous by any stretch of the imagination? Really.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    March 12, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Dear Why Not: Oh, honestly!