Hey everyone,

I found this photo in a my family's old photo album, actually it was a large black and white negative at the time. It was a negative of a photo of my mom as a baby, but I have never seen the actual photo before and neither had my mom. So, I decided I would try to scan it and invert it in photoshop. What do you know-it worked! (I just have a regular scanner, no film adapter.) So I thought I would try coloring it to see what it would look like. I feel like there's something lacking, I have fiddled with the contrast going from one extreme to the other. If anyone has any suggestions, I would love to hear them!

~Amber~

Looks great to me

Congratulations!! You did a real nice job here.:thumbsup:

Seems the only thing lacking is some details in the darkest parts, but as these are lacking in the original then best leave alone.

Rô

I agree, you've done a fabulous job.

Annabel

amber,

incredible job of coloring! i only wish i could do as well.

as for other things you might do, i played with this a bit. if you like it and think it's worthwhile, i'll include the steps. if not, why ok :)

Craig

Craig,

I like it! Appears to have more density?? I don't know what to call it.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the detail is lost in what appears to be a cabinet behind her, and I kind of thought that was a pretty backdrop. It just might be my monitor though.

Nice Job :nod:

Annabel

Thanks for all the kind replies!

Craig- I would be interested in hearing the steps you took. It looks higher in contrast than mine, was this achieved using an Overlay colors or was this done with levels/curves?

Is there a rule for how much contrast should be used in Colorings? That was something I battled with for a long time.

My biggest inspiration has to be Vikki, but I am not sure how she achieves such realism! Honestly her stuff looks like it was originally a color photo and she just turned the photos black and white..lol! She's that good. That is the look I am trying to achieve. Realism, not a photo that has been colored. Open to suggestions...

Thanks again,

~Amber~

annabel,

yes, it was contrasted and that tends to add more 'depth' (i think that's the word you may be looking for there). and yes, by contrasting the overall, the dark of the cabinet became more dark.

as for the crop i did, that would certainly be a personal choice.

amber,

i've attached my workflow image. it doesnt show everything done as the history is already erased.

the unsharp mask was fairly light, about 15/15/30 or so.

after doing the sharpen more layer i used a soften brush to take out noise on the face.

the 'hair clone' layer was a treatment around that one area of the hair that looked sort of monotone, right in the top middle of the head. i tried to add a little texture there and blend things a bit. not sure i succeeded on that one.

each layer, moving upwards, was a duplicate of the previous layer. so all those treatments were duplicated in the last raster layer.

with the curves layer i wanted to reduce the very bright whites of her dress mostly and get a bit of contrast and soften some of the shadows on the dress. so, lower the whites and some of the midtones. so, it was pretty selective and not very severe.

the brightness/contast layer was to bring more contrast to the overall.

oh, and i also did a bit of 'push' on the baby's face where the whites were a bit blown out. just 'pushed' some pinks into the whites. and i added one line with a simple brush under her right cheek to highlight that edge a bit.

and that was pretty much it.

Craig

Thanks Craig! Although, I always forget that you use PSP instead of PS. I know-it says it right there in your signature, but sometimes my brain dumps useful information, but I will see what I can hook up with your techniques in Photoshop. Thanks for the details!

~Amber~

Nice job Dreamypix! I also think you did a nice job with colorizing but like you, I would always defer to Vikki's advice. Perhaps my only concern was the purse, second only in interest to the child. Perhaps instead of a black blob, a lighter rendition showing it's character might be interesting. Of course, some of what I think is character may only be a fingerprint. You decide.

Cheers

Dave

amber,

you're welcome.

as for psp and translating, the 'soften' brush is part of the smudge tools. it's an adjustable brush that blurs as you 'paint'. the 'push' is also of those tools. it's like a heavy duty smudge brush.

Craig

Craig,

Thanks for the extra help. You know way back when (Ok like 5 years ago.. :) ) I started out as a PSP user, loved it too. But my husband INSISTED I use Photoshop because "all the pros use it". So I learned (slowly) how to use photoshop. It was a pretty frustrating thing to learn at the time! But I am glad I stuck with it, especially since CS2 is out now. A lot has changed in 5 years. But I still wonder about PSP every now and then (mostly when reading one of your posts!) Thanks for the help too.

Duv- It is a fingerprint. :blush: I wasn't sure how to get rid of them, they are all over the negative. And I really wasn't in the mood to clone out every single one, so if you have a faster and pain free way of getting rid of them I would love to hear it!

Just a curious- The photo is from around 1955-1956. The negative was large, not a regular 35mm, probably around the size of a 2x3. What type of camera would this type of negative come from? I don't believe Medium Format but I could be wrong- Anyone?

~Amber~

amber,

you're welcome.

and, if we compare 'dog years', where one year equals seven to a dog, to 'computer years' as regards the growth of technology, then one year is like about 15 to computers. so, your 'way back when. ok, five years' remark would be the equivalent of 75 years ;)

i started with deluxe paint III on my amiga 2000. loved it. when i eventually moved to a pc there was nothing as good. i finally found psp 4.12 and used it on and off for years. this was the shareware version. i dont buy a lot of shareware as i tend to try it, use it once, and never use it again. but i finally realized with psp 4.12 that i WAS using it more than once and that i liked it. so, when it finally started selling in the retail stores i bought it. that was psp 7. i just recently moved to 9. in fact, i bought 9 since coming here to RP and needed something to catch up a bit. 9 is still nowhere as complete as PS and i still get lost in PS tutorials, but when you compare psp 9 to ps cs2 and then compare the price tags, i believe psp 9 might be the better bang for the buck, especially if you're not in the 'pro' class of artists around here, and especially as a learning program. and, when psp 10 comes out, i'll be getting that also. eventually, i'll most likely go to ps and use both, but for now psp suits my needs and pocketbook :)

Craig

Amber, I use vinegar and water, 1 to 2o, rub the neg with lens tissue and hang to dry. Photoflow and water is better but I doubt you would have that kicking around unless you're into negative developing.

Cheers
Dave

Duv- Thanks! I will have to try that when I get my hands on the negative again. No, I'm not into developing my own negatives either. Amatuer photographer taking classes to go pro,yes, but I am a digital fan so I doubt it's in the near future either!

Thanks for all your help!

~Amber~

Amber,

My mom used an old box camera from about 1945 to about 1958 or 9 and it produced large negatives. I was lucky enough to get a bunch (my sisters absconded with most of the actual the pictures) and they scanned wonderfully. I know nothing about cameras tho so I couldn't tell you kind or film size. the negatives are about 1 1/2 X 2 inches. But your picture was inside and I think Mom's only took photos outside....

Craig ...Me too!!! an Amiga 2000 and Deluxe Paint were the best! I just moved up to Photoshop CS2 and it's almost as good. :grin: :nod: :grin: My Amiga is still in the attic. With my Commodore 64 and maybe even my Vic 20. The Amiga was a great machine for it's time!

Bill

The Amiga was a great machine for it's time! yup :)

Craig