Image Help - - Damn print texture

imann08 · #1 04-25-2006, 12:10 AM

This stuff is driving me nuts. I have been getting away with some neat image and then seriously hitting it with some blurring filter. Regardless of what I do though, I still have trouble getting all the texture out of it and keep it from looking totally plasticky even though I probably overstep that boundry as well. The one that I edited is not completely done due to frustration. The bench they are on is not done and hasn't been sharpened as well as other little odds and ends. If anyone can give me some tips on how to work with this stuff I'd appreciate it. I can go in depth as to what I did if anyone wants to know how I got what I got. Thanks in advance.

Kraellin · #2 04-25-2006, 01:03 AM

this one's very simple. the photo is in very good condition. start with an adjustment layer of brightness/contrast and raise the contrast, but lower the brightness. i think i went something like +33 contrast, -15 or so on brightness. that's going to take a lot of your noise out just with that and certainly most of that age toning/fading.

then, run neat image (i used digital camera noise removal in psp 10). but, run it at a much lower setting. DONT try to get all the texture out with it. just get it down to where things are passable when viewing the image at 100%. and remember, if your primary source of display is going to be print, you get a LOT of help from the inks bleeding and running a bit.

if you're still not satisfied, use a VERY light opacity smudge or clone (i prefer 'push') and smooth out any small rough spots....and i do mean VERY light.

the attached only did the first two steps, contrast and digi noise. i could see some small specs and such still there and i'd normally do the third step, but not tonight, dear; i have a headache

also, normally i'd have probably done like you did and desaturate first, but in the case of this image, where it was in such good shape to start with, i thought i'd leave the original tone in... just a personal choice on this one.

craig

imann08 · #3 04-25-2006, 01:23 AM

Thanks. Yours still looks like it has a ton of texture in it. Maybe I'm just being too picky. The reason that I desaturated this is because after I showed my uncle the colored one I did of him and my mother he wanted this one done in color so that's its final destination.

I also am wary of things that you tell me because even though you are using the same tool names as exist on PS, I don't know if we are dealing with the same stuff. That's just cause I have know idea of what PSP is all about. I've never seen it. For instance, brightness and contrast is a adjustment layer I never use on PS cause levels or curves accomplish the same thing. Anyways, I'll give this a run and get back to you. Thanks again.

imann08 · #4 04-25-2006, 01:35 AM

OK, this did what I sort of thought it would do. It just enhanced all the noise. Or at least it looked like it was going to do that after I ran the contrast brightness. When I ran the neat image it ended up turning out better.

familytreephoto · #5 04-25-2006, 01:38 AM

i'd ask if the cute lil boy is you but you'd probably smack me for callin you old

Kraellin · #6 04-25-2006, 01:40 AM

levels, curves and bright/contrast are all about the same on psp and ps. i normally use bright/contrast and curves both on an image like this. they work well together.

as for texture, my point is if you take all the texture out, it's always going to look like what you posted first. leave some in. a face has texture. it has shadows. now, in this image there really isnt much true texture in the skin to begin with. there is shadow, but not a lot of texture. by running neat image up to the max or in trying to get it to 'do it all', you're going to overkill and get too smooth on the edges and such. so all i'm saying is, dont try to make neat image do it all. cut it back. then go over the picture and see what else it needs. to me, after running my noise reduction, i can see mars and things, but that's where i'd do the third step... by hand.

neat image and psp's digi noise are great tools, but it's very easy to overdo them. that's basically what's wrong with your first image. it's just too much neat image. just cut it back and look at it again and you shld be fine.

attached is another version i did, this time using clarify and i threw in levels too. but i'm just attaching the woman's face blown up twice over the original. yes, there is some stuff that still needs correction, but compare it to the orginal and compare it to your first post and i think you'll see what i mean. i could make another pass with digi noise, but in this case i'd prefer to just touch it up now with smudge/clone/push/heal or whatever ps uses, but at a very light opacity.

craig

imann08 · #7 04-25-2006, 03:17 AM

FamilyTreePhoto: Actually, that's my mom, my uncle and my, you guessed it, grandmother. It was taken about the time we were dropping the bomb on Nagasaki. Never was able to meet my grandmother unfortunately but I had a new one before I was born so I consider that one to be my real one. I'll repost once I get something I feel confident enough to show the public.

familytreephoto · #8 04-25-2006, 10:45 AM

cool. I had kinda guessed the little boy might have been your dad, but at least i got the right generation.

Daviskw · #9 04-25-2006, 02:04 PM

Hi There

I am not sure the exact look you are trying to get... is this any closer to what you want?

imann08 · #10 04-27-2006, 12:52 AM

Mainly, I'm trying to get rid of all the little light and dark spots that cover the image without getting blurring it to death. If you look at the woman's shirt you will see the damage the clearest I think. The background also shows it as well as some of the shaded areas on the skin.

I was thinking about how to use blending modes in order to darken these lighter spots on her shirt without altering the darker areas around it but I can't seem to figure it out. It's probably not an option, I'm just trying to think of any and all possibilities.

I also found a way to get rid of them using neutral layers but that involves doing it by hand spot by spot and there are about a gazillion of them give or take a few. If I did it that way I'd have to get back to you next year with what I did.

I'm working on it right now using Craig's tip but that doesn't get rid of them anywhere near what I was hoping for. Better but not what I'd like to see. It's taking me a while cause I am going over a bunch of different things to see if they work and trying to improve it overall at the same time.

Any other ideas would be helpful cause this isn't the last time I'll run into this. Is Digital ICE appropriate in circumstances like this? I don't have it yet but will soon. Am I expecting too much from a photo with this kind of print texture?

Thanks

bart_hickman · #11 04-27-2006, 01:32 AM

I thought Craig's version looked pretty good, but here's something more smooth. If this isn't smooth enough, the problem might be you're posting too small of an image for us to see the problem sufficiently.

Bart

Syd · #12 04-27-2006, 02:13 AM

Isaac I don't think you want to remove too much texture with a picture like this. It isn't possible anyway without blurring it to the point where it looks deliberately blurred (unless of course that is the look you are going for). I am not sure just how soft a look that you want. It is all a matter of preference. What I might consider blurred you might consider spot on. Having said that here is my preference for this picture. I have attached two examples: one more blurred than the other. My preference is for the less blurred of the two.
Sincerely Syd

imann08 · #13 04-27-2006, 03:39 AM

Hey Syd and Bart. The reason I want the texture removed is because I have been asked to color it and to do that well, I think if I am going to make a mistake it should be to the side of blurring it. However, I have just tried another method that I found in Katrin Eismann's Photoshop Restoration and Retouching book. If you have it, it is on page 411. If not, it is supposed to be used for glamour shots, not 1945 black and whites but it is an excellent method to remove as much or as little of the texture as you want without making it appear blurred.

It has to do with using the healing brush and going at a copy of the original and then placing a light texture onto that with a neutral layer set to overlay. You then copy pieces of the original and paste them on top of the healed layer and texture layer and set the opacity accordingly. As long as you stay away from the edges and sharp contrast changes such as the eyes or lips, you don't lose anything and can allow the original texture to come through. It takes a little practice but I'm working on it. Keep an eye out for this cause I'm very interested in what you think of this process once I can show it to you. If you want to know more about this or have any questions about it then just ask. Thanks

Daviskw · #14 04-27-2006, 10:55 AM

Isaac

That is exactly the procedure I used... but I did not take a lot of time doing it.

I have found it works better on a high res picture better than what we download so it should come out much better for you.

Good luck

Kraellin · #15 04-27-2006, 11:33 PM

isaac,

i've been studying your image to see what it is you were talking about. i think i understand now but not quite sure. if you could post a recent one you've been working on that doesnt have this texture thing fixed yet, i'd appreciate seeing it.

also, have you tried the polaroid dust and scratch remover on this yet? it will handle things that neat image wont.

craig