Photo Restoration

[sanderle]

I am attempting to restore a honeymoon photo of my parents. The photo was taken in 1964, and enlarged to a 8x10. I have the framed 8x10, and a 3x3 photo. The 3x3 still has the correct colors. I have flatbed scans of both photos.

Is there any process to apply the color scheme of the 3x3 photo to the 8x10? Apply Image won't work due to the difference in size.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Gary Richardson]

Hi Sanderle, welcome to RP. Can you try posting your pictures, as it would help us to assess the problem and possibly come up with a solution.

[sanderle]

Here are my photos:

good (3x3 print)
bad (8x10 print)
bad color matched ( color matched with good, neutralize)

[Juliana Ross]

I think your 8x10 is pretty close, I would add a touch more green overall to get rid of the magenta cast.

The "good" 3x3 is really cyan, probably due to prolonged exposure to light. I would not think that is what it looked like when it was first printed.
But I have run into those customers at work who are so used to looking at a photo in its faded state , they do not think the corrected work "looks right"

All said and done I think your 8x10 is closest to the mark where the colour is concerned.

[Gary Richardson]

Hi Sanderle, Since you are satisfied with the colours on the 3x3, I simply copied it and pasted it to a layer above the 10" picture. Then I used the Free transform tool to fit the image to the larger image. Finally set blend mode of transformed 3x3 layer to colour.

Now you have the detail of the larger image, and the colour of the 3x3.

The colour will not be quite as detailed, but the eye is more tuned to variations in brilliance than colour, so it should not be too noticeable.

I have not attempted any other corrections, you could possibly tweak curves a touch.

[sanderle]

I can't see how the 8x10 is the correct color. That is the scan from a faded print. There is about a quarter of an inch all the way around the print that was covered with a mat. The colors in that area most closely match those of the 3.3 scan.

[Gary Richardson]

I've added your original 8x10, and 3x3, to my earlier post, so you can see them side by side, and see that the corrected version does have the colour from your 3x3 version. If needed, you can do a hue/sat adj layer to further boost colour intensity.

I've modified the description on my earlier post, hope it clarifies what I did.

[philbach]

I downloaded Gary's picture "good" and placed a levels adjustment layer on it. Using the option (alt) key to find the black point. That resulted in too much contrast so I reduced the opacity of that layer to 71%. Black Specks are noted but not corrected.

[Flora]

Hi sanderle,

Welcome to RP!

After trying different methods, I did exactly what Gary did:

• Open your Good and Bad pictures.
  
  
• Dragged your smaller Good picture on top of the bigger Bad one and set the blending to 'Difference'. (It looks kind of weird ... nearly black whit lighter forms all over)
  
  
• Used the 'Free transform Tool' to modify the top Good Picture Layer until the image was practically only black ... (That's when top and underlying Layers are nearly perfectly aligned!!)
  
  
• I changed the top layer blending to Color
  
  
• Used USM to improve contrast and sharpness.

I'm posting the B&A of your BAD picture ....

Gary,

Great Job!!!!

[Gary Richardson]

Thanks Flora. Wish I'd thought of using Difference, it would of saved me some time with the transform stage. Will definitely not forget it in future.

[Ed_L]

Originally Posted by sanderle

I can't see how the 8x10 is the correct color. That is the scan from a faded print. There is about a quarter of an inch all the way around the print that was covered with a mat. The colors in that area most closely match those of the 3.3 scan.

Welcome to RP. Like Juliana, I think the 8X10 looks best of the three, although not perfect by any means. Is it possible you had your scanner set to "restore color" when you scanned the pic? Is your monitor calibrated, or at least somewhat close?

Gary and Flora, as well as philbach did a nice job with the pic. But that's expected!!

[sanderle]

Thanks for all of the ideas. I haven't had a chance yet to try them out.

FYI, my monitor and scanner are calibrated. My scans did not have any correction turned on.

[Juliana Ross]

Hi ED!

Just force of habit to think in terms of correcting the colour to produce the best image possible......must be the lab technician brainwash...er I mean training

To me the 8x10 looks the closest to what the original probably looked like before it faded...I think I said that in a roundabout way

[Juliana Ross]

Hi ED!

Just force of habit to think in terms of correcting the colour to produce the best image possible......must be the lab technician brainwash...er I mean training

To me the 8x10 looks the closest to what the original probably looked like before it faded...I think I said that in a roundabout way

[Flora]

Juliana, Ed,

I nearly fell for that 'trap' myself ....

Even though, in his post, Sanderle listed the pictures as follows:

1 good (3x3 print)
2 bad (8x10 print)
3 bad color matched ( color matched with good, neutralize) 8x10

The pictures uploaded in the wrong order .... so their physical order is:

1 bad (8x10 print) ... the faded one
2 good (3x3 print)
3 bad color matched ( color matched with good, neutralize) 8x10

Luckily Sanderle named his picture .... but once downloaded I still checked their size just to make sure....

[sanderle]

Flora, I tried your suggestion. Initially, it didn't work very well because I couldn't get things to line up. But, I looked at the actual 3x3 print, and it had crop marks eliminating some of the sky. After applying that cropping to the scanned image, things line up much better.

The only downfall now, is that is seem to be losing detail in the foreground grasses. Is that a side effect of this technique? I'm also getting areas of magenta under the darker grasses. Any ideas?

Thanks again for your help. My parents will be extremely happy to have this restored!! I may even print a version in B&W. I think it looks good that way.

[Flora]

Hi sanderle,

thanks for your feedback!

Originally Posted by sanderle

The only downfall now, is that is seem to be losing detail in the foreground grasses. Is that a side effect of this technique? I'm also getting areas of magenta under the darker grasses. Any ideas?

I wrote this Mini-Tutorial on this technique for everyone who would like to try it ...

• Open Good and unretouched Bad pictures.
  
  
• Keeping the Shift Key pressed, 'drag' the Good picture on top of the Bad one (the new Good Layer will be perfectly centered on top of the Bad one > Attachment 1).
  
  
• Change the Good Layer Blending to 'Difference' (Attachment 2).
  
  
• Make a selection of your Good layer and go to Edit>Free Transform... (the 'marching ants' will change to a square with handles) ... pull the horizontal and vertical handles until your Layers are *nearly* perfectly aligned and the Image has turned practically black > Attachment 3)
  
  
• Change the Good Layer's Blending from 'Difference' to 'Color'.... and enjoy it ....

Don't crop!! .... Once the Layers have been aligned and you have 'accepted' the changes, Photoshop will do it automatically for you!!!

Getting there ... but the size difference leaves 'uncovered' a small border on 'my' left side and bottom of the picture ... (Attachment 4).... At this point, you can *now* crop your picture at 8x10 trying to cut out the uncovered borders... or continue as follows ...

• Duplicate the Corrected Good Layer, create a Layer Mask for it and, clicking on the 'eye' on the left, hide it from view.
  
  
• Go down to the originally corrected Good Layer and, with the 'Move Tool', move it to the left and down until the 'borders' have been covered. (Don't worry if the colors in the rest of the picture become 'unaligned' ... We'll correct it right now!!!)
  
  
• Create a Black (Hide All) Layer mask for this 'moved' Layer and, with a soft White Brush (Opacity 100%), paint over the 'uncovered borders' (and a bit beyond ....) to uncover the 'right color underneath.
  
  
• Go to the top Layer and, clicking on the 'eye' on the left, 'unhide it .... You might see a thin off-colour line where the two Layers overlap .... No problem .... with a soft Black Brush (Opacity 100% and diameter just enough to cover the thin line), paint over the 'line' to remove it. (Attachment 5).
  
  
• Merged Visible ... (the action for merging 'visible' without losing the underlying 'steps' can be downloaded here).

Gosh... I know it must look terribly complicated ..... but, until merging, you only have 3 Layers .... Actually, it took me 10 minutes to do .... and over an hour to write it all down ....

After this, you can still do some colour, tone contrast and sharpness adjustments ....

[Flora]

....and here is my final result after those little adjustments extra ...

Hope this helps...

[Gary Richardson]

Flora,

Except for your use of the difference layer, you have described the method I used as if you were sitting alongside me, (and much better than I would have described it).

As regards the overlap area, I erased back rather than masking, during the course of which I created small uncoloured areas. So I created a colour layer, sampled close to the uncoloured area and painted in to hide the joints.

I think masking was a better idea, and can't think why I did'nt do it. My excuse is it was late at night when I made my attempt.

[Ed_L]

Originally Posted by Flora

Juliana, Ed,

I nearly fell for that 'trap' myself ....

Even though, in his post, Sanderle listed the pictures as follows:

1 good (3x3 print)
2 bad (8x10 print)
3 bad color matched ( color matched with good, neutralize) 8x10

The pictures uploaded in the wrong order .... so their physical order is:

1 bad (8x10 print) ... the faded one
2 good (3x3 print)
3 bad color matched ( color matched with good, neutralize) 8x10

I *knew* it was a trick!