:It was not an inappropriate edit and your stating such is itself inappropriate. The original photograph has details left, including the photographer's mark and the benchmark border from the image left intact. Such borders and marks are important to identify it as by someone whose photographs are historically significant. Just because someone can touch in darkness in the surrounding areas doesn't mean it is improved. He has also dodged out any detail except for her face and hair, and the depth of her features are gone also. You cannot see any indication that she even has a body in the "restored" image. What's restored? The image appears flat and unremarkable when "blacked over". It should have been touched to eliminate a spot without flattening the depth of field. Sorry, making it look darker doesn't improve the image, it just flattens it. Not every vintage photograph is better with retouching, this example of a vintage Moody photograph of Pickford is one of them.