I have had this photo a while now and had a few stabs at it but gave up when i didn't seem to get anywhere, (think i prefer manipulation to restoration Sorry hope no one is offended) Is the photo to badly damaged to get any decent results from it ?
It is a photo of my father and his brother and sisters, Luckily my father is on the far left and was able to select him out and make a drawing of him from this. Unfortunately both of the girls have passed away the older one when she was just 16 and we think this is probably the only photo of her,
I know my father was disappointed at my attemt to improve the photo, but he also understands it is very badly damaged

can i with my limited knowledge make this any better with time and practice ?

palms

ps the scan i have of it is 1571 X 1946 pixels and the resolution is 300 pixels/inch

Hi Palms,

That mark in the centre looks like a stain? It might be worth posting in colour in case someone can get some improvement using channels.

ho boy.... here we go again. where's deadants and flora? i feel a tubgirls coming on ;)

you're right. this one has some real trouble areas. at first glance i didnt even tell there was a baby between the two larger children. i've captured this to my drive and will look at it later, but in the meantime, have you split the channels out to see what data might be showing up on each channel? also, if you can post the larger scan somewhere and link it here that would help. in pictures like this you want all the resolution you can get. noise reduction isnt going to do much but lose detail at this point, so things like Neat Image arent probably going to help much at first. i see a lot of handwork here with clone/heal and some very careful hand work with a fine brush. this looks to be one of those almost forensic types where you end up speculating a lot.

have you tried curves and levels and contrast tools on this yet? this might bring out some of that dark area in the center.

also, split the channels out in not only rgb, but also cmyk. sometimes you can pick up a bit more data that way. but this looks to be a roll up your sleeves, take your time, and get out the magnifying glass type of piece. post the higher resolution image somewhere and we'll take a look :)

Craig

Can you re-scan in RGB and post again?

k

ok, i've taken a quick look at this. i see sharpening blocks in the image. not good. was this something you did before posting or does your scanner have a sharpening filter on it? either way, the best post here is one that is completely untreated; just a raw scan at the best resolution you can get.

i also looked at the channels a bit. they're not showing much difference. seems the damage runs pretty much throughout all of them. but i am picking up a bit of detail by layering things and playing with channel mixing, contrast and negative imaging...a tiny bit.

Craig

Thank you all for your quick replies, I didn't actually do this scan originaly, but it sounds as if it will be best to get the original and scan again, though this will take a few days or so,

palms

palms,

if you have the larger version, post it now if you can. but if it has the sharpening blocks also, then yes, a re-scan would be good, but turn off any filters the scanner might be using.

Craig

Ok everyone i have managed to get hold of the original photo and boy is it bad, i am pretty sure that the darkness over the two girls is due to something (bit bigger than a cup) being put on there maybe a vase or something. I really don't think that there can be much of a improvement made to this photo
I have scanned it as a colour document at 200 dpi (please let me know if it should be any different but please not to technical, i just put a photo in and press scan) I have posted a slighly bigger file size into my gallery (a first) i think this would be the link

http://www.retouchpro.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/14604

and just if it is of any interest i have posted the reverse of the photo looking at it i can see someone has wrote there names on it in order of age
Mick was a nickname for mavis (the baby) also it was took in 1932

palms,

much better :)

one thing, though. i still see 'sharpening blocks' when i zoom in. is your scanner doing this or are you treating it before you post it?

also, there's lots that can be done for this picture. the baby is pretty far gone, but the rest isnt too bad. i can even make out an eye on the other girl.

Craig

What i am doing is putting into scanner selecting colour best (200dpi) then exporting to ps and saving as jpeg to get low enough compression to post, nothing else , and all i know about the scanner is that it scans !

This time i also have noticed that the older girl seems to have a pattern on her dress ! !

all i know about the scanner is that it scans !

Most scanner software applies sharpening—amongst other destructive adjustments :hurt: —by default. You can change the amount of sharpening applied, or choose "no sharpening" in scanner software Preferences...skip

palms,

maybe it's just the jpeg compression, but check the scanner preferences. if i zoom in pretty closely i definitely see sharpening blocks of some sort.

i loaded the image
added another layer and used Fast Fix on it for contrast and brightness
added an adjustment layer for curves with a blending mode set to luminance.

that's all i've done so far. there is more detail in the baby than i originally thought.

Craig

Well had a look around in the scanner software preferences and found nothing, then had a look at the advanced settings (see below) and found descreening ? so ticked the box and done another scan see below, not sure if there is any differnce or not ,
Thanks Craig there is definately more detail there.

palms,

nope, it's still there. am enclosing a close up to show you what i mean. this is an 8:1 zoom, or thereabouts. notice how everything is in blocks. that's what i'm talking about when i say 'sharpening blocks'. i simply call it that because when i sharpen in paint shop pro i get the same thing.

check your custom settings and see if there isnt something in there for this. it may not have it and the scanner may just do this for everything being that it's only a 200 dpi scanner. i'd recommend getting at least a 300 dpi, though i see where some here claim 600 dpi is the best and that anything above that on prints is worthless.

at any rate, this isnt insurmountable. the picture can still be cleaned up. and where now you can see more of the data of the baby, this is why we like 'clean' scans. those 'blocks' alter the original data and where this data is sketchy already, the blocks can make it worse instead of better.

so, back to you now. would love to see the progress as you go. i wont be doing this one up full myself. got about 50,000 things i need to be working on :) but will certainly help any if i can.

Craig

Thanks yet again Craig for the info and yes i can see what you mean, I am able to scan at higher dpi, so will have a go at that soon and see if there is any difference ( have to hook up scanner as there are not enough plug sockets etc to keep it on all the time ) I have looked again and cannot find out about the sharpening which is maddening because as posted and reading up on the matter on a web page i cant find it anywhere but will not give up just yet, will keep you informed on how i get on though

Palms

ah, good on the higher dpi :) 300 shld be fine. you're going to lose some when you change to jpg and post, so if you've got another place to post and link here, that would be better.

Craig

It would be helpful to know which scanner, scanning software, and image editor you are using. I suspect you might be saving your scan as a jpeg < 1 compression > editing, then saving the file < 2 compressions >, then saving for web after resizing as a jpeg < 3 compressions > with resultant artifacts...skip

Skip

The scanner i have is a Visioneer ( came with the pc as part of a package), cannot find any other details, it came with very little paper work, The software is Paper Port 7.0 Deluxe !!
I had wondered about the compression thing as you say it was 3 times, so i have scanned again at 600 dpi then just dropped it into ps7 hopefully cutting one out

Just realised i have got completely confused as to which is which scanned photo gone completely do lally :eek:

so have got rid of them all and will start again later on, will do one at 300 and one at 600, unless anyone suggests something else.
thanks for advice

:dizzy:
palms

Agreed. Rescan at 600 SPI and save as something other than JPEG if possible. Sorry I am not familiar with either your scanner or software. In APS 7 make a duplicate Image/Duplicate for your editing and Save As a .psd. After editing make another Duplicate and resize the Duplicate by Croping or Image/Image size, Save for Web as a JPEG and Optimize Size. Hope this helps...best

Just realised i have got completely confused as to which is which scanned photo gone completely do lally

ok, now you're starting to sound like me, only with me, it's 'where did i save that bloody thing to?' :)

Craig

:) :) thanks guys will be trying that probably tomorrow, Just to give my brain a really good work out i will be trying to get a web page going (remembered that the isp provides 30mb free) so i can have somewhere to post larger images, Well it beats the repeats on the t.v. :rambo:

Palms

sounds gooder to me :)

Craig

I have now scanned this at 600 dpi, dragged it straight into ps7 and saved for the web,
Would it be at all possible that the photo could have some problem ( bear with me) i decided to compare it with another old photo i had scanned at 200dpi and enlarged both to the same magnification the first one had the "blocks" but the second one just seemed like normal pixelation to me ??????
Well this is the one i am going to have a bash at, will crop some of it (less work ) but obviously use the bigger file (saved as ps file)

Palms

Hi everybody,

Palms,

I had a go at your picture .... it really is in very bad conditions :o: .... anyway, I worked on the one you posted last .... I will try the bigger one ... the one you posted in the gallery just out of curiosity ...

Here is what I came up with ...

Thank you Flora a lot more detail is present there, really quite unbelievable for the state that it is in, Thank you very much,

palms

i also gave this a shot, part way.

i found that an overall histogram adjustment did a lot of good, but i also ran this again on a selection promoted to a layer of just that center circle that was darkened to lighten this up and get some more detail.

there was also a curves adjustment layer and a channel mix in there somewhere and a jpeg artifact remove to reduce that 'block' effect a bit.

i also cloned out some of the easier stuff in the background a bit on some of the kid's clothing.

like flora said, this is REALLY a badly damaged piece. she did a remarkable job in bringing out some of that central detail and balancing things.

Craig

Craig I was just having a go at the easy stuff as well, and i was pondering on wether the darkness between the older two was a chair back ? as i said earlier i cant quite believe the amount of detail that both you and Flora have been able to achieve,
I have come to the decision to do a little bit each day, and the bit that catches my eye first when i open the photo,

palms,

you're doing great! and yes, a little bit each day is an excellent way to do these where they need a LOT of work. sometimes a very good idea to 'step back' a bit and look at things fresh.

as for a chair back....hehe, your guess is as good as mine. next time i look at it i'll look for that :)

Craig

Hi,

Palms,

I agree with Craig .... you are doing great! :thumbsup:

I tried the bigger size .... and the results are a bit 'clearer' ... (nothing to write home about....though....) ... as for the chair back .... I dont think it is ... particularly following the folds of the back curtain .... but I'm not really sure... so ... quoting Craig .... your guess is as good as mine ....

you're really finding that baby in there, flora; excellent! remind you of the tub girls at all? :)

Craig

Greetings Retouchers,
The 8x8 pixel squares are created from the jpeg compression algorithim. What they're doing is averaging data in the 8x8 square (actually, they're nested 8x8 squares inside 16x16 squares). As long as you keep saving it as a JPEG it will keep producing these squares. Save it as a TIF file to keep all the pixel data as scanned. The problem will be, of course, uploading it to the web since it will be humongous. Scanning it at 300 lpi(dpi) should be more than sufficient.

Descreening is only useful if the source image is from a printed page like a magazine or newspaper. Descreening cuts down on the moire effect that digitizing these sources can create.

Flora, you are simply amazing. :eek:
Would love to know how you did that.

thank you, klaatu (the day the earth stood still? boy, that goes back a ways)

Craig

Thanks Craig,

.... yep!!! It definitely reminds me of the girls in the tub!!!!

Hi Klaatu Baradda,

Welcome to Earth and to RP! :pleased:

Thank you so much for your kindness and tips!! :pleased:

To bring out the details, first, I used the Shadow/Highlight adjustment (available from PS CS onwards) ... (Attachment 1)

Attachment 2 is where I got from the Shadow/Highlight adjustment after two Brightness/Contrast Adjustment Layers applied on selections of the darker central area ...

Thank you Klaatau for your explanation especially the descreening , and Flora thanks for your explanation I have just had a quick look at your new tutorial will have to upgrade though not only software but pc too.

Palms

p.s. have included a update of work so far

lookin good! but larger pictures, palms :)

Craig