I've been putting this one off...

[Succiu]

I've got another family photo that i'm trying to fix up a bit.

Here's an original scan, and as you can see the bottom of it is faded pretty bad. That's the area I'm having the most difficulty with. I can't seem to pull out enough detail to know whats supposed to be there.

Anyone care to take a stab at it please?

[Sean2]

Hello Succio,

While one never likes to admit failure, I must admit it with this picture: and not for lack of trying, but perhaps the knowledge to apply.

I tried the follwoing with results so minimally different from your own efforts, that it wasn't worth posting:

Duping the background
selecting the best of all channels, including multichannel;
highlighting the light channel in LAB and sharpening most other channels
Shadow / Highlight and various mixes of difeent channels.

Nothing I tried worked, except to reveal an apparent tear or wrinkle in the lower right corner and potentially an adhesive mark or glue running down the right side from the man's shoulder - this obliterated any efforts to improve.

Even more demoralizing was the inability to obtain the hint of another flower in the dress the young lady is wearing, and I thought that might be fairly straightforward.

So I gave it my best shot and came up short

Hopefully you or someone else has managed to improve the lower portion

Regrets, but keeping at it,

Sean

[Caitlin]

I could be wrong, but I wonder if there was ever more image in that corner? I would probably treat it as a vignette.

On another matter - do you know about the trick of multiple scans for removing paper texture? If not, I can post the details. I've just run t through Neat Image, dust filter, and unsharp mask.

[Gary Richardson]

As there is no real image information in the bottom RH of your image, its not likely that you can bring out the detail here. It could be that you have other pictures of this couple, in which case a reconstruction might be possible. Otherwise, as Caitlin says, you could apply an eliptical vignette yourself to hide this "defect" a little.

[Flora]

Originally Posted by Succiu

....the bottom of it is faded pretty bad. That's the area I'm having the most difficulty with. I can't seem to pull out enough detail to know whats supposed to be there.

The only details I could make out in that part of the picture were the obscured arm of the girl and the faded jacket of the man .... I am very much for 'as close as possible to the original' .... but if the most damaged part of an image doesn't contain vital information/details ... well, then, why not making it a bit easier on ourselves by cropping or, as suggested by Caitlin, hiding by creating a vignette?

[Ken Fournelle]

There is probably no one on this site who is as adept as Flora in finding the hidden details in an image. I echo her thoughts about "making it easier on ourselves" when we come to such a realization. After all, what is the purpose of our restoration? What is it we are tryinng to do for ourselves; our clients in the end? The detail of a jacket in the obscure corner of the image really may not be that important to struggle over.

That being said, in images that have a scenic background, a farm, another house or detail of the location, I try to preserve. I have found that people love to look in the background and remember that location, neighborhood or scene. I try also to preserve some of the old "tapestry" backgrounds photographers of old used. I find them rich, quaint and historical.

Just some thoughts. Sorry if I rambled.

K