My Dad's only picture of his parents

[Sheri Medford]

This is the only picture my dad has of his parents. It is their wedding day picture. The one with blotches is my attempt 3 years ago to fix the picture, it was very faint. The other blury one is my recent attempt to get rid of the blotches in the skin etc. I used a gaussian blur and mask, but it only gets rid of the blotches if dialed really high? Can anyone help me get this picture fixed to its best state or tell me how. I want to colorize it and frame it for my dad. He was sooo pleased with the first attempt even with the blotches, but I want him to have a really good touch up and colorized version. It would mean alot to me and to him. Thank you.

[HeatherRankin]

Do you happen to have a copy of the original photo? It may be easier to work with than the ones you've already worked on

[Sheri Medford]

I think I gave the original back to them when I did this. I hope I didn't because my mom has dementia now and it is tough to find things. I will look again here, but I haven't seen it when I looked through before. All I did on the photo was replace the background and do levels with maybe a unsharp mask (that is all I knew how to do). The original was just like this one only very faint and the background was the same spotted mess (no disernable background details were lost) as their faces, so I atleast got rid of that. I am visiting my parents next week and I will look there as well. But I hope people can work with this okay. Mainly if I could figure out what to do or the limits of what I could do, when I locate the original I can fix it.

Any help would be much appreciated!

Sheri

[bart_hickman]

This was real quick, but with some time, you should get a pretty good result:

1. First use the band-reject method to get rid of the real coarse noise (6 - 15 pixel spatial size). This tutorial describes the method:
http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=213

I used a highpass setting of 15 and a blur setting of about 6.

2. Use good noise reduction (eg., Noise Ninja, DCNR in Paintshop Pro) to remove the rest of the noise for the faces. Use manual noise sampling for only the faces. I additionally used a mask to block the NR for the hair.

3. Use another pass at noise reduction for the clothes--again, use appropriate manual sampling and masking to fine tune the NR. Since the noise isn't really noise, NR filters have to be used in stages like this.

4. Cloning and healing (I just did a minute's worth of this)

5. Large radius unsharp mask to clarify the image a bit (I used strength 20, radius 70). If you have Paintshop Pro, then you can just use the clarify filter--it works a bit better than USM.

http://home.comcast.net/~zumbari/old..._of_couple.jpg

Bart

[Verywierd]

Interpolated using the 10% method to give more working room. The clean up was similar to the band reject technique mentioned by Bart except I used three copy layers, one with gaussian blur, one high pass and one inverted high pass. Each was black masked, and then selectively painted in using a soft white brush. Any remaining defects cleaned up with clone and healing brushes. Increased contrast using a copy of the touched up result on soft light blending mode. Lightened with two layers on screen mode, one of them slightly gaussian blurred. Colours were just multiple filled colour layers masked and painted in and blended using soft light or colour modes whichever worked best.

[Cameraken]

Hi Sheri.

The reason Heather asked for the original is because it could have made the restoration easier. This picture appears to have been scanned is b&w and then converted to colour. It could have again been easier with a colour scan.
Also by painting out the background some of the shadows could have been lost.
This picture was also saved as a jpeg and the jpeg artefacts are very prominent in the faces. They have been painted over in the background.

I had a go at this.
I used Floras methods described here.
http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=206

To clean up the faces and clothes and then dropped in a new background.

Hope you like it.

Ken

[Sheri Medford]

What a wonderful site! Great reply's in so short of time.

Bart, it seems many people use Paintshop Pro, is this a program like Photoshop and as good as photoshop? Thank you for the tutorial I will study it and try the technique. Noise is something I am just now becoming aware of and this inspires me to take a closer look at methods for dealing with it.

VeryWeird, do you have a given name, I feel weird calling you VeryWeird. I will practice the tutorial on highpass. I have used it a few times but still don't quit understand well enough. What is "inverted" mean in the case of inverted highpass?


Ken. I loved your background and the clarity of your version. Where do people get backgrounds like that. Do you have a folder of such backgrounds you can just slip under the protrait after removing the old background? Very nice work.

You all have come to my aid and I so appreciate it. I will find the original and rescan it on color and then try these methods. I am now sure I will create a version that will blow my parents away. Thank you all, I was so stuck. When I finish is (weeks?) I will post on my gallery for you to see.

[bart_hickman]

Originally Posted by Sheri Medford

Bart, it seems many people use Paintshop Pro, is this a program like Photoshop and as good as photoshop? Thank you for the tutorial I will study it and try the technique. Noise is something I am just now becoming aware of and this inspires me to take a closer look at methods for dealing with it.

Yes, Paintshop Pro (PSP) is a program like Photoshop. For me, I ran into a barrier with PSP recently that forced me to get Photoshop, but most people will never exhaust the feature set of PSP. I've certainly never seen any digital photo challenge or problem presented in this site you couldn't solve using PSP. I still use PSP for a few of its nearly indispensable features. The noise reduction filter is chief among these.

Bart

[Ed_L]

Hi Sheri,

I haven't been online for a couple of days, so I'm just now seeing your thread. One thing I would highly recommend is that when you scan a photo, immediately save it as a read only file. Then you can work on it and save under a different file name. If you do that, you'll always have the original scan to go back to if needed without scanning again.

Ed

[Verywierd]

Originally Posted by Sheri Medford

What a wonderful site! Great reply's in so short of time.

Bart, it seems many people use Paintshop Pro, is this a program like Photoshop and as good as photoshop? Thank you for the tutorial I will study it and try the technique. Noise is something I am just now becoming aware of and this inspires me to take a closer look at methods for dealing with it.

VeryWeird, do you have a given name, I feel weird calling you VeryWeird. I will practice the tutorial on highpass. I have used it a few times but still don't quit understand well enough. What is "inverted" mean in the case of inverted highpass?


Ken. I loved your background and the clarity of your version. Where do people get backgrounds like that. Do you have a folder of such backgrounds you can just slip under the protrait after removing the old background? Very nice work.

You all have come to my aid and I so appreciate it. I will find the original and rescan it on color and then try these methods. I am now sure I will create a version that will blow my parents away. Thank you all, I was so stuck. When I finish is (weeks?) I will post on my gallery for you to see.

Hi Sheri,

My name is Bobby PSP is a great program and much cheaper than PS and has some interesting photographic enhancement tools.

As for the "inverted" high pass, well if you run the high pass filter on a duplicate layer you get (after some fiddling) a greyscale image that basically only shows the sharp edges and outlines of the image, sort of like a pencil sketch on grey paper. If you apply this using (say) the "soft light" blending mode it acts as a "sharpener" by emphasising the lines and edges. Unfortunately, sometimes the dirt, grundge, scratches etc are so strong that they get treated as an outline feature and the high pass filter will actually make it worse. However, if you "invert" the high pass image (Ctrl-I in Photoshop) it changes it into a "negative" version (light areas become dark, dark becomes light) which will soften or remove the edges, spots etc and strengthen the smooth/soft areas when applied to the image.

I am sure that the pros here will have better methods but I like having the two opposite effect layers which I can precisely control with my pen and tablet.

[Kraellin]

difficult image.

way too many steps to try to put them all down here. but the major ones were:

32 band gray plugin to get rid of some of the 'noise'.
digital camera noise removal.
lots of clone and push.
i think there was a 'clarify' level in there somewhere.
the backdrop was a color forest scene that i desaturated and then blurred.
between the backdrop layer and the cutout of the couple i added a gray fill layer to blend the two layers together better in shading.
there was more than one blank layer with airbrushing for touching up.
lots of copy merges and start a new process.
at least one curves, one levels and one histogram adjustment layer.

sorry, this was done over several days and psp just doesnt save the history palette

and following what bart said about psp, psp kind of came into its own in version 9 and then 10. i've used it since version 4.12. photoshop is the premiere editor, but like bart said, you can do most any task you'll find on retouchpro with psp; you just have to find the work-around in some cases.

most folks use PS, at least the pros do, i think, and it's the one 'everyone' knows. it's also the one that if you apply for a digital graphic's job of any sort, the employer will no doubt ask for your PS experience and abilities.

i use it because i've always used it and because when i started using it it was shareware/free. and, as mentioned, it's still only about a tenth the cost of PS. it's also far easier to learn. but the learning curve can fool you regarding its power. just because it's easier to learn doesnt mean it's that much less powerful than ps.

the biggest downside to using it here is, with most folks using ps here, tutorials, helps, explanations and so on, all tend to be in PS speak and it doesnt always translate into psp speak.

it's a good program.

craig

[Sheri Medford]

thank you everybody, I am sure getting a lot of good information!

Bart, Thanks for the info about PSP, I have heard it so often I just wondered.

Ed, I had a scan of the original saved separately before I got organized for all the photos I have now to practice on,,,, I can't figure out where it went. But I will find the original and then be more careful. I now have my pics organized.

Hi Bobby (thanks for your name) and the inverted highpass instruction. I printed it out and put in my tech notebook and will try. I hope I understand. i know the invert shortcut but didn't realize you could invert things other than a mask.

Craig, great job on the photo. I will take all these great suggestions I have and try them out and I know I will end up with a wonderful gift for my dad.
I particularly like the background. Much better than just the plain, it adds visual interest.

Thanks again all. I so appreciate your help!

[Kraellin]

thanks sheri

it could stand some more work...her dress, and the one side of her face in particular, but it was a start.

craig

[Sheri Medford]

Wll you all have raised the bar for me. It may take me awhile to live up to the standard, but I am trying.

Thanks

[klassylady25]

Thank you for sharing your family. One is meant to have the look of a portrait, the other is a simple restoration.

[Sheri Medford]

Candice, Very nice job. I love the background, my original try was fake looking. It looks like you used a lighting effect instead of airbrush like I did. I just learned about omni lighting so I need to try it.

Thanks, Sheri

[Sheri Medford]

I found the original photo so I will load it for you to see.

[Kraellin]

excellent, sheri

here's one based on the original.

i ran two different passes of byRo's degrunge on this. added a bit of contrast/brightness, did a little airbrushing on a separate layer, a very, tiny bit of 'push' and a curves.

i mostly ignored her dress and the background. if you were going to colorize this, i'd not do much with the dress until you wanted to colorize. it seems to be a sort of light, summer print, but it could also be just noise/dirt/smudging that is giving all that variation. so, depending on how you wanted to go from here would determine what i'd want to do or not do to the background and her dress.

craig

[bart_hickman]

I like the smooth skin on this one, but it looks like the faces have been blurred too much and the eyes are poking through the blurriness. I think a little easier on the face blurring looks better. I took a swipe at the original too. Probably similar to what I did last time except I used a gradient map to give it an old-timey look. The shadows are sepia and the highlights are cyan/blue.

Bart

[Kraellin]

bart,

yeah, i saw it as soon as i posted it. i'm becoming used to just posting things up and then coming back later and seeing it's not done. it's really quite obvious now. i knew it was a little off when i was working on it, but now it looks REALLY off. lol. i gotta walk away from these for 24 hours before posting.

craig

[Kraellin]

ok, this shld be a little better. i started over, ran only one pass of the degrunge, did a tiny bit of airbrush and then a high pass sharpen.

craig

edit: didnt like that one either...still too spotty. so i ran digi noise removal, some lighten/darken, and a little cloning on top of the last one.

[bart_hickman]

Now you're talkin'! That one looks pretty good. I have the same problem--I'll post something I could swear looks good and then I look at it in the post and I think it looks terrible.

I have to remember to flip back and forth to the original to keep my bearings.

Bart

[Kraellin]

thanks bart,

it could still stand some work...some noise reduction here and there, a clean up of her outfit...and his. i kind of like the background on this, but the contrast is poor for the images of the people. and when i start getting paid for these, i'll start finishing them

and yes, i've all too often posted something only to see the flaws the next time i look. i tell others to walk away all the time and then post stright up, myself. it's a practice well worth disciplining oneself on and there are a number of methods that can help. the most obvious is to simply save and quit that image. another is to turn the image upside down or mirror it for a while. this can give one a fresh look. another, and the far more tricky one, is to develop the ability to erase in your mind everything you've seen prior to the current state the image is in. and that's the real trick... seeing it newly, in a new unit of time, without any 'after images' of what it looked like before. it's more of a skill than some might think; certainly more of one than i used to think. but it's a skill worth developing....and obviously i havent yet

craig