If It Is Not Detectable...

[PovertyRow]

If it is not detectable, is it Restoration?

 

I've seen this concept alluded to (not just pressing but restoration in general) so this poll is the result. Very simple poll.

 

OK - so am adding clarification as what is clear subjectively is often obtuse objectively.

 

The poll question says "If a process ..."

 

By "process" I mean any deliberate attempt to improve the appearance or structure of a comic book by addressing a specific problem or problems.

 

The cough syrup is upon me - sorry for the obtuseness.

[deathlok]

I'm not sure if I understand the poll, although I voted yes.

 

First the assumption is that restoration was done that was undetectable. I don't think that is the arguement that is constantly being made. The arguement as I understand it is whether non-removal pressing is considered restoration, not whether it can be detected.

[drbanner]

If it is not detectable, is it Restoration?

 

I've seen this concept alluded to (not just pressing but restoration in general) so this poll is the result. Very simple poll.

 

What is "it"?

 

If you're talking about pressing, I don't recall anyone saying that if you can't detect it, it's not restoration? Of course in practical application (PLOD or NOT), if it is not detected, it won't be labeled as restored (I know, I know - I'm the master of the obvious!).

[PovertyRow]

I'm not sure if I understand the poll, although I voted yes.

 

First the assumption is that restoration was done that was undetectable. I don't think that is the arguement that is constantly being made. The arguement as I understand it is whether non-removal pressing is considered restoration, not whether it can be detected.

 

Well, I say "it" because if I say "Restoration" then I negate the poll. "If Restoration is done but not detectable, is it Restoration?" doesn;t make sense as the definition of Restoration is being queried in the poll. (That make sense?)

 

I never said the argumnent was constantly being made. I said it has been alluded to. Also said "not just pressing".

 

Thing is - it is a poll for opinions. It will be interesting to see the result.

[PovertyRow]

If it is not detectable, is it Restoration?

 

I've seen this concept alluded to (not just pressing but restoration in general) so this poll is the result. Very simple poll.

 

What is "it"?

 

If you're talking about pressing, I don't recall anyone saying that if you can't detect it, it's not restoration? Of course in practical application (PLOD or NOT), if it is not detected, it won't be labeled as restored (I know, I know - I'm the master of the obvious!).

 

 

Go by the Poll Question itself which says "If a process is not detectable...", not "If it is not detectable...".

[drbanner]

If it is not detectable, is it Restoration?

 

I've seen this concept alluded to (not just pressing but restoration in general) so this poll is the result. Very simple poll.

 

What is "it"?

 

If you're talking about pressing, I don't recall anyone saying that if you can't detect it, it's not restoration? Of course in practical application (PLOD or NOT), if it is not detected, it won't be labeled as restored (I know, I know - I'm the master of the obvious!).

 

Go by the Poll Question itself which says "If a process is not detectable...", not "If it is not detectable...".

 

Ok...if the process is wind blowing over the cover of the book to blow off some dust, I don't believe that is restoration. If the process is somebody using water soluble adhesives to reattach a small color flake to the bottom of a split spine, I believe it's restoration.

 

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable. Of course whether or not "it" ends up on the label is dependent upon whether "it" is detectable, but characterizing the process itself is sort of independent of detectability.

 

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[PovertyRow]

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable.

 

That is the core of the poll. I am in complete agreement. Curious if others feel the same.

[drbanner]

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable.

 

That is the core of the poll. I am in complete agreement. Curious if others feel the same.

 

[deathlok]

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable.

 

That is the core of the poll. I am in complete agreement. Curious if others feel the same.

 

So do you really think there are people who think that if a process is not detectable that they feel that is not restoration? I would be very surprised if their was even one person who thought this way.

[PovertyRow]

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable.

 

That is the core of the poll. I am in complete agreement. Curious if others feel the same.

 

So do you really think there are people who think that if a process is not detectable that they feel that is not restoration? I would be very surprised if their was even one person who thought this way.

 

That is what the poll is designed to find out. Have another poll to come following this one.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable.

 

That is the core of the poll. I am in complete agreement. Curious if others feel the same.

 

So do you really think there are people who think that if a process is not detectable that they feel that is not restoration? I would be very surprised if their was even one person who thought this way.

 

That is what the poll is designed to find out. Have another poll to come following this one.

 

Isn't this a bit like the 'If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound' question?

[PovertyRow]

In the end, I don't think the call on whether or not a process is restoration is at all dependent upon whether it's detectable.

 

That is the core of the poll. I am in complete agreement. Curious if others feel the same.

 

So do you really think there are people who think that if a process is not detectable that they feel that is not restoration? I would be very surprised if their was even one person who thought this way.

 

That is what the poll is designed to find out. Have another poll to come following this one.

 

Isn't this a bit like the 'If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound' question?

 

Not at all. Besides - that "if the tree" question is easy to answer. All it takes is the definition of sound. If we are referring to sound as just vibrations, then the answer is yes. If we are referring to sound as "vibrations processed by an auditory system" then the answer is no. (not sure about the accuracy of the term "auditory system" but basically something that interprets vibration from the falling tree as noise.

[Tango 'n Cash]

What is not detectable today could easily become so tomorrow.

[PovertyRow]

What is not detectable today could easily become so tomorrow.

 

Absolutely no question of that! As processes progress so do detcetion of same. Sometimes not at the same rate but eventually ... ketchup!

[divad]

If it is not detectable, is it Restoration?

 

If something is truly not detectable, then it does not exist . . . EXCEPT in the mind of the processor.

[fantastic_four]

If it is not detectable, is it Restoration?

 

I'm the first to vote "other"? Perhaps I took the question's phrasing too literally...

 

There are many things done to a comic which are not detectable. Some of them are restoration, and some of them are not.