Photo Restoration - - Ghostly image

deadants · #1 04-24-2005, 09:07 PM

Hi Guys, This photo I’m posting is a real head banger.

I have been doing a bit of volunteer restoration work on a Genealogy forum. So there are some great old photos that people post for me to attempt to repair. Occasionally someone will post a picture that is, well almost beyond recovery, at least that is what I thought until I seen what was being achieved on this forum. I have had a go at this one but I only seem to be able to highlight the ghostly figures a little bit by selecting them and adjusting the levels.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this sort of photo is being posted a fair bit.

Here’s a link the forum where I have been attempting to learn as I go.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index...ard,298.0.html

deadants

Caitlin · #2 04-24-2005, 09:41 PM

Hi deadants, what a great forum - and a challenging photo!

Do you have access to a higher resolution copy? I tried trimming the photo (just to make it a quick attempt) and pulling out the blue channel which seemed to have the most information, but mostly what I get is a whole lot of jpg noise.

It's hard to tell what's possible at this low resolution, but I think most of it will just have to be painstaking retouching work with clone, heal etc.

ps. There is supposed to be another child in there?? I'll be really impressed if someone manages to pull that out of the picture!

deadants · #3 04-24-2005, 10:21 PM

Hi Caitlin,
Well the second figure eluded me for a while but I finally saw her on the left.

Unfortunately this is the only photo I was given so it’s a ‘go with what you got situation’. I will ask her if she can rescan it an send me a larger copy, but as my previous post says, most of these people have little knowledge of scanning or digital graphics at all, so it can be a bit frustrating at times. Anyway, here’s my attempt, poor as it is.

deadants

Kraellin · #4 04-24-2005, 11:10 PM

most interesting.... and i'll tell you why in a bit.

caitlin's right. a better scan would be quite helpful. in fact, on photos like this, you want to scan in the very highest possible setting, even if you end up with a 75 meg picture. the higher the better.

also, ask your friend to make sure the scanner bed glass is perfectly clean. this can make a big difference at times, and on this one, you want every possible data bit coming through correctly.

ok, now for the interesting bit. working with deadants 2nd attachment, i noticed something which didnt quite look right to me. the girl on the left seems ok, but the person on the right seems dis-proportionate to the tub they are both ostensibly in. so, i think what you've got here is something of a rare bird. it's a hack. but it's not a digital hack. it's a photo/darkroom hack. the person on the right was placed into the shot AFTER the shot. now, bear in mind that that photo is so deteriorated, that i could well be wrong. so, this is only a guess. there are a couple of other clues to this, but again, that photo is so far gone, that those other clues could just be deteriorated film and not clues at all. still, every time i look at this photo, it just doesnt quite look right. cute.

K.

Sean2 · #5 04-24-2005, 11:43 PM

I am definitely going to have to get my glasses checked!!

Here is my "hack" with a little photo magic for the face. however, I saw the left child with arms over the tub (elbows leaning on it so to speak). Anyway, I missed the cat's face, so, i expect i have this one wrong too

Anyway, here it isssss

Sean

deadants · #6 04-24-2005, 11:45 PM

Hi Kraellin,
Yes, I totally agree about the scanning to maximum size, I have asked her to rescan it so I can have a good look at the detail. Your theory of the photo being doctored may be correct but I thought I could see her knees tucked up in front of her.

Do you think this may be a case of artistic license is taken to recreate from scratch

deadants

Caitlin · #7 04-25-2005, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean2

Here is my "hack" with a little photo magic for the face.

Oh - for a minute there I was stunned to see the other little girls face, and was wondering what you had done to bring it out, but is that 'magic' a bit of creative addition??

deadants · #8 04-25-2005, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caitlin

is that 'magic' a bit of creative addition??

No magic about it. She was always there. You just have to look at the original for a while. If you clink on this link below you can see her original post and that's what I was looking at.

deadants

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index...html#msg196270

Caitlin · #9 04-25-2005, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadants

No magic about it. She was always there. You just have to look at the original for a while. If you clink on this link below you can see her original post and that's what I was looking at.

deadants

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index...html#msg196270

Ah - but I think Sean's version has the detail of eyes, nose and mouth that isn't appearing elsewhere?

deadants · #10 04-25-2005, 01:55 AM

I'm confused, whose Sean

Sorry I now know who Sean2 is, Thathat's wat happens when your doing three things at once.

deadants · #11 04-25-2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean2

I am definitely going to have to get my glasses checked!!

Here is my "hack" with a little photo magic for the face. however, I saw the left child with arms over the tub (elbows leaning on it so to speak). Anyway, I missed the cat's face, so, i expect i have this one wrong too :

Sean

Hi Sean,
Wow that's a completley different perspective on the second girl. It's funny how everyone sees different things in these photos.

deadants

Caitlin · #12 04-25-2005, 02:15 AM

Actually deadant that link to the original image did help - though the version you have posted here is bigger (file size wise) I think the second compression may have added a lot of extra jpg artifacting. That's the big problem with JPG - everytime you save you add rubbish

I had another go - now I can see that knee as well I think! In fact the second girl is starting to become reasonable clear as well

(Ain't photoshop great!!)

deadants · #13 04-25-2005, 02:56 AM

I think that's the Tub rolled edge at the back. If I can get a really good scan from the owner maybe we can have a decent look.

I agrre with you about jpeg artifacts. They make great for emails but nightmare for restoration.

deadants

Kraellin · #14 04-25-2005, 06:13 PM

deadants,

i've been studying this pic for a while and i took what you said about the knees being tucked up and you may be right. that does explain some of what i'm seeing. dont know

i've also been trying different filters and effects and so on and i believe i've come up with yet another version of the girl on the right. interesting that we all are seeing her in different ways. also, i dont see the evidence for sean's version, though, the evidence for ANY way is pretty scant.

i'm including an outline pic and without the outline. see if you can see what i'm seeing without the outline.

also, i'm pretty sure that dark smudge on what appears to be the top left part of her head is not actually part of her head, but rather some sort of deterioration mark. it could just be the hair color went bad on the film there too, since it does seem to trace fairly true to what her head form seems to be.

shld be quite interesting to get a better scan and see what this really looks like

K.

deadants · #15 04-25-2005, 07:14 PM

Hi Kraellin,
Gee, this photo has more twist and turns after everyone has a look. I think whichever position the left girl is in, a heck of a lot of artistic license is going to be used. Did you use a pencil tool and graphic tablet to trace around the edges?

The owner of the picture emailed last night asking me how high to scan the photo, so hopefully in the next day or two I may have something we can have a good look at.

Getting away from the girls for a bit, is there any ideas on what that thing on the right in the background is?

deadants