True Colors

The scanning aspect of the print>pixel operation is fairly straightforward: I put the pictures on the flatbed scanner, close the lid, hit 'scan,' and there it goes. There are a few decisions I've made beforehand based on the client's needs regarding format or dots-per-inch, but I do find the "now you see it, now you see it again on your computer screen" ease of scanning very appealing. That's the easy part.

Color correction can be a difficult issue. Most of us don't see colors in the same way and most of the tools we use to capture color have a multitude of ways of expressing them. I don't have much experience with manipulating images to achieve a 'balance of color,' mainly because it can be subjective. When I look through photos I have from my childhood, many of them are dark and a bit orange. I don't mind that. In fact, I kind of prefer it. When I look at them I am reminded that these prints are 30 years old-not only am I nostalgic for the feathered hair and Ditto jeans, but for the overall orange tint of the '70s. It helps frame my memories in a time, a space, an era. As long as the image I'm after is clear, I welcome a little over-saturation.

Not everyone agrees. People want to see the variations of blue and black in a pair of bell bottomed pants. Or trees with green leaves. Or a white dress at a wedding. I completely respect that.

But that is why I'm hesitant to promise color correction when I'm scanning photos. Equipment and clarity of prints or negatives aside, my preferences may not mesh with those of the client's. Regardless of whether or not the whites or blacks are balanced accurately, we all have varied ideas about what makes a picture "good" or "lovely," "bad" or "ugly." You may be interested in a certain look or feeling--these decisions can be based on many factors--but I definitely feel it should be the client's prerogative.

So I have a question for you: Between the following two images, which do you prefer?