Hi everyone,

This picture is the hardest I've come across yet and I'm rather stuck at the moment. I just can't seem to get the face to resemble the one in the original, it seems. The Yellowed tape has obscured the mouth and nose.

Also, with something like this, is it better to scan it at a higher resolution--i.e. 400 dpi or instead lower such as 266 dpi? With or without an unsharp mask??

Your help will really be appreciated!! I'll post the original here and my best effort so far next.
Diane :bawling:

This is as far as I was able to improve it so far. I desaturated the color and used the healing brush in replace mode on the face. But does it look like the little kid in the picture??

Diane

Hi dipech,

Can you please crop the original in so that just the picture is showing? That would allow you to post a larger version of the picture for us to give feedback on.

In general, I would try scanning at a higher resolution (attempting to pull more detail from the original) and do not sharpen during the scanning stage. Typically, sharpening should be the last thing you do.

Jeanie

Hi Jeannie,

Here is a cropped version. I don't think it adds much to leave in the rest of the horse's feet; do you?

Thanks very much for taking a look at this,
Diane

I'm not much of a restorer, but you asked if you maintained the face of the child. And I can offer an opinion on that. So I loaded both pictures and looked at them side by side.

I think you have a very good start there. You captured the overall look of the face, and even that sort of perplexed look in the right eye. And the nose is almost perfect.

What I noticed though is the area that extends from the upper outer corners of the eyes. It is too heavy. Looks sort of like makup. But it should not be too much work borrowing that area from the original.

The other thing I would change is the mouth. It might be that the damage is wrecking the mouth on the original, but I have a feeling the mouth was never that dark and solid. Probably more of hints of the shape.

BTW, if you have a website you could post the full size copy there and offer a link. That way people who wanted to try out their suggestions could use what you are using.

Hello Diane,

I started by dividing the image where the tear had been and moving it over towards the other side just a smidge.

I used the black and white filter to get a bit more definition, and selected the whole tape area and desaturated and lightened a bit till it was close to the rest of the image.

I used the dodge brush to lighten the dark edges of the tape, and the burn brush to lighten the torn area.

Then I went in with the smudge brush and cleaned up a good share of the image, including some of the jpg artifacts that were there. When it came to the young boy, I sort of built it back up using my imagination to some degree, as so much had been hidden under the tape. I kept comparing to the original as much as possible, to try and keep the same feeling.

Hope I haven't messed it up too badly.

Tyeise

Hi Diane

Here is what I did;

-moved sections together
-used Apply Image to insert red channel into new layer, masked out to just the taped area (which lightened the masked area with the detail of the red channel), changed blending mode of this layer to luminosity
-control clicked on the mask to load it as a selection
-created new hue / saturation adjustment layer with the selection active to automatically create the mask for just the tape area, reduced saturation until it matched the non tape area (kind of the long way around, but easier for me to see the image under the tape this way)
-flattened
-Used clone tool to repair
-lightened and darkened some spots and used levels
-overall toned with hue/saturation

Hope you like it, Roger

Hi Roger,

Thank you so much for taking the time to work on this! Your version looks really good. You seem to be a pro on using channels. This is my first time working with them. I noticed that the blue channel looks really bad in this picture. Would it help if I deleted it? I've spent the last hour or so trying to retrace your steps and reading about the Apply Image command in The Photoshop Bible by Deke McClelland which I was unfamilar with. Did I make a mistake if I ended up with a gray scale version after I did Apply Image? Did you add a mask before or after you did Apply Image? Do you recall what settings you used in Apply Image? Should mask be checked or unchecked?

Could you give any more specifics on how you got around the damage to the eyes and mouth?

Also, what did you mean about "moving sections together"?

Thanks again,
Diane

Diane,

I suggest Photoshop Channel Chops - the bible for understanding the root of how Photoshop works, it is how I learned to think my way through these things ...

Let's take one step at a time ...

"move sections together"

From the look of the original, after the tear the two halves were re-taped further apart, so;
-duplicate the background onto a new layer
-to the new top layer apply a mask
-select the Brush Tool
-turn off the eyeball on the background layer to make it easier to see what you are doing
-with the mask selected on the top layer - paint black on to the image on the left side until everything is empty on the left of the crack - go into the crack just a little, as you paint the photoshop checkerbord pattern should appear symbolizing "transparency - nothing there"
-turn on the background eyeball
-make sure the top layer is selected
-select the move tool
-drag the top layer to where it looks right to you, see how many image landmarks you can find to indicate when you have found the right spot
-when you get it right, flatten

"applied red channel ... "

When I looked at the channels, the red was the prettiest in the tape area, but in other areas it lost detail, so this is what I did

-create a new blank layer
-select the new layer
-Image > Apply Image, in Apply Image dialogue box slect the Red Channel, Click OK
-Turn off background eyebal
-Add mask to top layer, Select mask
-Paint black on the image everywhere except the where the tape is so that the tape is the only thing visible from that layer
-change the blending mode of the top layer to lumiinosity
-turn on the eyeball of the background layer

Try following these steps ... let me know

As far as cloning around the eyes and mouth - the best I can explain off of the top of my head is;

-Think of the clone tool as not a clone tool, but a painting tool that works by cloning. If you want to create a tone in a spot, what adjacent area has that tone that you can use as the source for the clone? Use a delicate, careful touch with low enough opacity to the clone tool that you have to click on an area 2 or 3 times to build up enough tone, vary your souce slightly with each click, use a soft enough brush so that the edge of the brush doesn't appear and don't be afraid to make the brush really small to work the detail. Don't be afraid to undo and start a spot over. Be sure to picture the lighting and shadows so that you can have a goal as to what the spot should look like. When you are repairing damage like this you are actually creating new shapes that are not in the original.

If you have a question on any of this or need help on the remaining steps, let me know

Roger

Originally posted by roger_ele
"
"applied red channel ... "

When I looked at the channels, the red was the prettiest in the tape area, but in other areas it lost detail, so this is what I did

-create a new blank layer
-select the new layer
-Image > Apply Image, in Apply Image dialogue box slect the Red Channel, Click OK
-Turn off background eyebal
-Add mask to top layer, Select mask
-Paint black on the image everywhere except the where the tape is so that the tape is the only thing visible from that layer
-change the blending mode of the top layer to lumiinosity
-turn on the eyeball of the background layer

Try following these steps ... let me know

Roger [/B]


Thank you, Roger!! You have made my day! I was actually able to follow everything, except in this section above. When you say "add mask to top layer, select mask," what kind of mask did you mean?? Were there any other settings as far as the target layer to use in the Apply Image dialogue box??

I will have to search around for the book you mentioned, it's one I haven't ever seen before.

All the best,
Diane
:rainbow:

Diane

I am glad you are getting this!

Apply Image was just the settings I stated, no other settings. The reason there are no other settings is that we are just filling the empty layer with the red channel so that we can use the brightness (the black & white or luminosity information) of the red channel.

The type of mask I am talking about is a layer mask, 2nd icon from the left at the bottom of the layers window. When I say select mask it is to make sure that the layer mask is active (bold box around mask on layer in layer window) rather than the image on that layer being selected. I don't mean to make it an active selection ... I should have said click on the layer mask to make it active. Sorry, I am bad.;)

Photoshop can be confusing since the word mask is used in many different places.

Roger

Roger,

Thanks again very much for taking the time to reply. I followed the last steps about applying the red layer a few times and ended up with the dress area still yellow, but a much lighter yellow. Still not sure all my settings in Apply Image were right-- should the source in the top box have been "merged" or the background Layer?? I will have to study the Apply Image tool a bit further... But I plowed on and cleaned up the yellow with the cloning tool etc. Thought I'd post how its looking...

Whoops... posted the wrong one...

Diane

Diane,

I am tired, so let me know if this isn't clear, I wanted to give a qiuick response in case you were waiting for my reply ...

Your version looks very good, although the face is a little blurry. I think that is probably because you are using the smudge tool. the smudge tool is really good at creating an average tone among mixed light and dark areas when you stay away from areas of detail, but keep to areas like the cheecks that would normally be smooth. usually you will need to add back some noise or texture, if only subtley to areas that have been smudged.

Apply Image ...

-Source: the photo you are working on
-Layer: Merged (you want all the layers that are visible combined, in this case there is just the one layer with an image on it, the background plus the new blank layer)
-Channel: Red
-Blending: Multiply or Normal (it is reacting to an empty layer, so it doesn't matter - like making a new layer and setting it's blending mode to multiply, if there is nothing on the layer to multiply to the image below it won't change anything)
-Opacity: 100%

This is just a quick and easy way to past a channel into a new layer (or even the combined image of all of the layers into a new layer), I am sure there are other ways to do this, it is the way I am used to.

I ended up with the tape area too yellow also, but lighter. That is why I loaded the tape area as a selection and then created a hue/saturation adjustment layer, with which I lowered the saturation.

Hope this help, I am off to bed, Roger

Hi Roger,

Thanks again for all your help! You are wonderful! I ended up having to start all over from the beginning to redo the face, but this time it went quickly and I am getting these steps down! It is interesting how fast you can do these things once you know what you're doing. I hadn't used the smudge tool earlier, but the blur tool to try to blend in some of the white spots on the face. Guess that caused the effect you noticed. So this time I used mostly the healing brush in both replace and normal mode and the cloning tool and the burn tool on the face.

I also ordered the Photoshop Chops book you mentioned. For anyone else who's interested, it is available on Amazon.com.

So here is my improved face version

All the best,
Diane :rainbow:

Diane - I have been watching your progression here and just wanted to comment on the difference from your first submission to this one here. Roger does wonderful work and I have been keeping track of the tips he has given you - learned a lot on this thread. Great job and it's good to see you did not give up!

Looks like the picture posted too small, so I resized it and am reposting.

Diane

Could I ask why you didn't remove the tape?

Hi Jim,

The original is very old and fragile. It seemed unthinkable to try to remove the tape which had been on there a very long time. You could easily end up totally destroying the original--a risk I did not even consider taking.

All the best,
Diane

Just a suggestion Diane, but you might want to look into the History, Conservation and Repair section of the forum here - then go to an antique store or garage sale and gather up the biggest mess of ruined old photos you can find.

The idea is raising your comfort level in handling distressed old photos of course - and believe me, taking off that tape is not anywhere near as difficult as the steps you have to take if you don't. More inportant to your clients, it gives you a shot at a much more professional final result.

I'm with you on "unthinkable" until you've done it a least a few dozen times though! Practicing on the ones that have already been tossed is the only way to go!

Jim Conway,
Timemark Photo Conservators

Jim,

How interesting! Other than pulling, is there anything that helps the tape to come off easier? Putting it near a little steam??

But actually, at least on this picture, it isn't so terribly hard to work with the tape still on, once you get the hang of these techniques--and know which one's to use when. But the tape-pull method could certainly save you some time.

Diane

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=54737#post54737

I've never had much luck with links here but you might try this one. In it we discuss the use of the tools needed.

Tape is a common problem and although I can't see this particular original to be sure, I can tell you that the job of removing the tape on similar works would be less than a ten minute job.

Face detail is tough to rebuild and a layer of plastic over the features is going to severely complicate the work leading to "opinion" on the look rather than an unmistakable recreation of the original.

"Pulling" is not the answer and that can risk further damage, it's heat (a hot knife tool) or solvents designed for the purpose that will do the trick.

Jim Conway

Re: the hair dryer tip combined with dental floss, micro-spatulas, wrapping an album and sticking it in the freezer...

Jim, thanks very much for your post and this very informative and amusing link. I'm sure that one day soon it will come in extremely handy. About how much are the knife tools that you mentioned with the hot tip??

Diane

Diane,

You are getting it - very good!

Jim is right about the shape of the face being subjective.

These are the areas that I see that I think could use attention,

-Detail in the face, try useing a higher opacity and a smaller brush to work that little spot next to the bigger spot, and again until the bigger spot is gone. Or to say it another way, look for the little spot that you can feel confidence in what it should look like, then the next little spot, etc. The hand on this is hard! I ended up guessing and reconstructing with just enough shape that hopelfully the viewer would assume the rest.

-Lighting on the boy's face is too dark in front, and too light on his temple. Looking at the lighting on the horses face the light is coming from over the photographers shoulder from the left, it is a soft source of light which means that the shadows have a gradual edge to them. The front of the horses face is well lit so the front of the child would be well lit also, with just a little shadow, on the shadow side only of the nose and under to the shadow side of the lower lip and a very thin shadow along the outside edge of the cheek. The left edge of the face (the highlight side) would be slightly lighter than the front of the face because of the added light that hits it from behind the child.

I don't know whether mine had the same problem, but now that I look at it the front of the horses legs don't look real...

Attached is a quick example of the face adjusted on the last retouch of yours. Please don't take this as being critical, you are doing great! I just want to take you as far as I can, then maybe someone else will take us both further ...

Roger

I've played around with this one a bit. First I converted it to B&W. I decided rather than trying to remove the effects of the tape I would belnd it in. I mainly used the healing brush to disguise the tape. In some areas I needed to dodge and burn to correct problems. I cloned slightly on the dress and a little around the left eye. I adjusted the levels and curves then gave it a sepia tone. If I had spent a bit more time I'm sure there could be more improvement in the face. I am not happy with the outline of the face but that too could be improved with some work.
I didn't do enough with the hand but with some cloning it could be improved.

Hi Roger,

Thanks again for your great feedback! Boy this stuff does get complicated! How do we tell where the source of light is coming from and the kind of light it is?? I thought it was just general sunlight or maybe overcast in this picture. I'll have to study up on this area too... Any books in particular that you'd recommend?

I'd like to take a good look at the adjusted face you posted but at 72 dpi it didn't come out very clearly at all. I'd really appreciate it if you could repost just your picture at a higher resolution.

Diane

Hi Diane,

Light source and direction comes from experience being a photographer, I could talk / write for days on this, it is one of the things I love about photography. I am not sure how much is appropriate with-in this thread, but I am as game as you are...

Imagine if you were a small insect like a fly, and you could rest on each spot in the photo and look out from the subject at the light source, it is the light that each spot sees that creates the look of the lighting that we see when we look at anything and / or at a photograph. What I mean is that you can practice this in real life without ever taking a photograph, by studing what is lighter and darker, and asking yourself why.

Find yourself a tree, a piece of sidewalk next to it with sunlight hitting the sidewalk, look at the trunk of the tree. There will be a glow from the reflection of the sunlight off of the pavement. The wider the anngle of the light source (bigger and closer it is to the tree) the more light cast from one spot will be filled be another spot, giving the light a softer look. walk around to the side of the tree so that you see glow on one side and shadow on the other. The spot in between the light and dark side of the tree will have a harder edge to the shadow because that spot sees a narrow slice of light from the pavement. If there are no leaves on the tree the glow will not seem as bright or directional because it will be partly masked by the light comming from above.

Snag two pieces of cardboard and a person, walk outside in the shade. Hold one piece of cardboard vertically on one side of the persons face, hold the other horizontally on top of the head so that the face is shaded and watch how the light changes. If you don't see much difference your eyes are probably adjusting for the surrounding brightness level, make a tunnel out of your hand and look through that. Now look at the person moving yourself around the person, ask them to hold the cardboard. What I am demonstrating is lighting is a combination of where light is coming from and what is subtracting light from hitting the subject.

Look at the horses head, see the planes of the front of the head and the side and which is lit how much, and how the transistion is gradual (each hair does not create a distinct shadow), it is also not a lot darker under the head (the chin, etc.) so the light is comming more from the front than alot above and it is not dirrect sunlight.

The net result without getting too confusing is that I think the most main light source is the sky, with some sort of tree cover overhead blocking the light from the sky that would have been comming from above.

To answer your question, I don't know of any books on this except for "Matters of Light and Depth" by Ross Lowell. He is a master of lighting from the film industry.

In regards to the work done on the face, I did not shrink it, I just cropped the one you posted. Here is it blurry - but res'd up. If you want to post a larger version I could do that also.

Sorry this post is soooo long, hope it helps,

Roger

Roger_ele...
Learned so much, thanks for all of your typing!!

Here's that young cowboy....in a borrowed hat...

Hi Roger,

Have been meaning to thank you again for taking the time to explain about lighting! Haven't had a chance to go out and do alot of yet practicing with my camera but hope to do so very soon. Do you prefer digital or film cameras? Which would you recommend for beginners?

Let's say you are trying to take a picture of a 11x17 picture or painting to use for restoring the picture. Is there a way to avoid getting major glare coming from the camera? If you shoot without the flash will you get all the detail you need? I had to do this recently with a film camera and no matter whether I took the pictures indoors or out, or how well it all seemed to look in the viewfinder, I had major glare ruining all the shots. Each shot had the glare in a different spot and I tried to use the best parts of each picture for my restoration, but of course this is not the way to do it.

Thought I'd post one of the pics to give you a better idea what I'm talking about:

Hope you're having a wonderful 4th of July weekend!
Diane

Hi Diane

Thanks, my pleasure.

Film or digital? Both are great, but for someone learning digital is wonderful because of the instant feedback - it really speeds up the learning process.

Regarding copying old photos; The reason you are getting a reflection is that our light source is too high, it needs to come in at a lower angle. Let me start by saying a couple of easy ways to do this that will work with the minimum of equipment;

Open your garage door, set the photo on the floor of the garage, with all lights off and just the reflected light coming into the garage take your pictures of the photo. Make sure to do this at a distance into the garage at least the distance the garage door is wide. Use a tripod if your test photos come out blurry. I could talk about exposure, but first thing is to get lighting that will work, so just bracket your exposures...

or you could do this...
1) Snag a kitchen table or a sturdy desk or card table, move it up against a wall that is at right angles to a wall with a window, we will use the table as a horizonatl copy stand so that we don't have to worry about having a tripod.
2) Lean the photo up against the wall as vertical as possible, or pin it, or use removeable tape on the back, or little kitchen magnets on a steel plate to hold the photo in place, whatever would be appropriate...
3) Let the camera on phone books / books that raise the camera lens to the middle of the photo
4) Make sure the camera is at right angles to the wall and the photo
5) turn off the room lights so you just using window light, take your photos of the photo
Note: The copy camera set up needs to be far enough away from the window (which is your light source) that the edge that is nearest the window doesn't see a feflection and that the light fall off is negligable from the edge of the photo that is near the light to the far edge.

Although it is possible, I suggest you don't use flash for this.

To understand how great of an angle the light source needs to be, take a bright flashlight and put is next to the camera, notice the reflection, now increase the angle until the reflection disappears. A laquered painting will need a greater angle because of the shiney bumps that are at an angle to the camera axis.

Holler if any of this doesn't make sense, Roger

What a great thread!!! This is one I'm saving in my favorites. Great responses from all.

Bob