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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Can they not leave anything in its original state? Why do they have to try to
improve on something that doesn't need improving?
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.
How can anyone say that restored picture is hideous by any stretch of the
Dear Why Not: Oh, honestly!