Photo Restoration - - Can this be improved? - Page 2

Kraellin · #16 07-25-2005, 01:56 PM

ah, good on the higher dpi

300 shld be fine. you're going to lose some when you change to jpg and post, so if you've got another place to post and link here, that would be better.

Craig

skipc · #17 07-25-2005, 04:39 PM

It would be helpful to know which scanner, scanning software, and image editor you are using. I suspect you might be saving your scan as a jpeg < 1 compression > editing, then saving the file < 2 compressions >, then saving for web after resizing as a jpeg < 3 compressions > with resultant artifacts...skip

palms1 · #18 07-26-2005, 06:15 AM

Skip

The scanner i have is a Visioneer ( came with the pc as part of a package), cannot find any other details, it came with very little paper work, The software is Paper Port 7.0 Deluxe !!
I had wondered about the compression thing as you say it was 3 times, so i have scanned again at 600 dpi then just dropped it into ps7 hopefully cutting one out

Just realised i have got completely confused as to which is which scanned photo gone completely do lally

so have got rid of them all and will start again later on, will do one at 300 and one at 600, unless anyone suggests something else.
thanks for advice

palms

skipc · #19 07-26-2005, 10:33 AM

Agreed. Rescan at 600 SPI and save as something other than JPEG if possible. Sorry I am not familiar with either your scanner or software. In APS 7 make a duplicate Image/Duplicate for your editing and Save As a .psd. After editing make another Duplicate and resize the Duplicate by Croping or Image/Image size, Save for Web as a JPEG and Optimize Size. Hope this helps...best

Kraellin · #20 07-26-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Just realised i have got completely confused as to which is which scanned photo gone completely do lally

ok, now you're starting to sound like me, only with me, it's 'where did i save that bloody thing to?'

Craig

palms1 · #21 07-26-2005, 12:14 PM

thanks guys will be trying that probably tomorrow, Just to give my brain a really good work out i will be trying to get a web page going (remembered that the isp provides 30mb free) so i can have somewhere to post larger images, Well it beats the repeats on the t.v.

Palms

Kraellin · #22 07-26-2005, 12:37 PM

sounds gooder to me

Craig

palms1 · #23 07-28-2005, 07:23 AM

I have now scanned this at 600 dpi, dragged it straight into ps7 and saved for the web,
Would it be at all possible that the photo could have some problem ( bear with me) i decided to compare it with another old photo i had scanned at 200dpi and enlarged both to the same magnification the first one had the "blocks" but the second one just seemed like normal pixelation to me ??????
Well this is the one i am going to have a bash at, will crop some of it (less work ) but obviously use the bigger file (saved as ps file)

Palms

Flora · #24 07-28-2005, 09:34 AM

Hi everybody,

Palms,

I had a go at your picture .... it really is in very bad conditions

.... anyway, I worked on the one you posted last .... I will try the bigger one ... the one you posted in the gallery just out of curiosity ...

Here is what I came up with ...

palms1 · #25 07-28-2005, 12:54 PM

Thank you Flora a lot more detail is present there, really quite unbelievable for the state that it is in, Thank you very much,

palms

Kraellin · #26 07-28-2005, 01:14 PM

i also gave this a shot, part way.

i found that an overall histogram adjustment did a lot of good, but i also ran this again on a selection promoted to a layer of just that center circle that was darkened to lighten this up and get some more detail.

there was also a curves adjustment layer and a channel mix in there somewhere and a jpeg artifact remove to reduce that 'block' effect a bit.

i also cloned out some of the easier stuff in the background a bit on some of the kid's clothing.

like flora said, this is REALLY a badly damaged piece. she did a remarkable job in bringing out some of that central detail and balancing things.

Craig

palms1 · #27 07-28-2005, 01:46 PM

Craig I was just having a go at the easy stuff as well, and i was pondering on wether the darkness between the older two was a chair back ? as i said earlier i cant quite believe the amount of detail that both you and Flora have been able to achieve,
I have come to the decision to do a little bit each day, and the bit that catches my eye first when i open the photo,

Kraellin · #28 07-28-2005, 02:16 PM

palms,

you're doing great! and yes, a little bit each day is an excellent way to do these where they need a LOT of work. sometimes a very good idea to 'step back' a bit and look at things fresh.

as for a chair back....hehe, your guess is as good as mine. next time i look at it i'll look for that

Craig

Flora · #29 07-29-2005, 08:38 AM

Hi,

Palms,

I agree with Craig .... you are doing great!

I tried the bigger size .... and the results are a bit 'clearer' ... (nothing to write home about....though....) ... as for the chair back .... I dont think it is ... particularly following the folds of the back curtain .... but I'm not really sure... so ... quoting Craig .... your guess is as good as mine ....

Kraellin · #30 07-29-2005, 01:25 PM

you're really finding that baby in there, flora; excellent! remind you of the tub girls at all?

Craig