Photo Restoration - - Can this be improved?

palms1 · #1 07-20-2005, 06:38 AM

I have had this photo a while now and had a few stabs at it but gave up when i didn't seem to get anywhere, (think i prefer manipulation to restoration Sorry hope no one is offended) Is the photo to badly damaged to get any decent results from it ?
It is a photo of my father and his brother and sisters, Luckily my father is on the far left and was able to select him out and make a drawing of him from this. Unfortunately both of the girls have passed away the older one when she was just 16 and we think this is probably the only photo of her,
I know my father was disappointed at my attemt to improve the photo, but he also understands it is very badly damaged

can i with my limited knowledge make this any better with time and practice ?

palms

ps the scan i have of it is 1571 X 1946 pixels and the resolution is 300 pixels/inch

Caitlin · #2 07-20-2005, 06:56 AM

Hi Palms,

That mark in the centre looks like a stain? It might be worth posting in colour in case someone can get some improvement using channels.

Kraellin · #3 07-20-2005, 06:59 AM

ho boy.... here we go again. where's deadants and flora? i feel a tubgirls coming on

you're right. this one has some real trouble areas. at first glance i didnt even tell there was a baby between the two larger children. i've captured this to my drive and will look at it later, but in the meantime, have you split the channels out to see what data might be showing up on each channel? also, if you can post the larger scan somewhere and link it here that would help. in pictures like this you want all the resolution you can get. noise reduction isnt going to do much but lose detail at this point, so things like Neat Image arent probably going to help much at first. i see a lot of handwork here with clone/heal and some very careful hand work with a fine brush. this looks to be one of those almost forensic types where you end up speculating a lot.

have you tried curves and levels and contrast tools on this yet? this might bring out some of that dark area in the center.

also, split the channels out in not only rgb, but also cmyk. sometimes you can pick up a bit more data that way. but this looks to be a roll up your sleeves, take your time, and get out the magnifying glass type of piece. post the higher resolution image somewhere and we'll take a look

Craig

Ken Fournelle · #4 07-20-2005, 07:13 AM

Can you re-scan in RGB and post again?

k

Kraellin · #5 07-20-2005, 07:21 AM

ok, i've taken a quick look at this. i see sharpening blocks in the image. not good. was this something you did before posting or does your scanner have a sharpening filter on it? either way, the best post here is one that is completely untreated; just a raw scan at the best resolution you can get.

i also looked at the channels a bit. they're not showing much difference. seems the damage runs pretty much throughout all of them. but i am picking up a bit of detail by layering things and playing with channel mixing, contrast and negative imaging...a tiny bit.

Craig

palms1 · #6 07-20-2005, 01:17 PM

Thank you all for your quick replies, I didn't actually do this scan originaly, but it sounds as if it will be best to get the original and scan again, though this will take a few days or so,

palms

Kraellin · #7 07-20-2005, 01:22 PM

palms,

if you have the larger version, post it now if you can. but if it has the sharpening blocks also, then yes, a re-scan would be good, but turn off any filters the scanner might be using.

Craig

palms1 · #8 07-24-2005, 12:20 PM

Ok everyone i have managed to get hold of the original photo and boy is it bad, i am pretty sure that the darkness over the two girls is due to something (bit bigger than a cup) being put on there maybe a vase or something. I really don't think that there can be much of a improvement made to this photo
I have scanned it as a colour document at 200 dpi (please let me know if it should be any different but please not to technical, i just put a photo in and press scan) I have posted a slighly bigger file size into my gallery (a first) i think this would be the link

http://www.retouchpro.com/gallery/sh...0/ppuser/14604

and just if it is of any interest i have posted the reverse of the photo looking at it i can see someone has wrote there names on it in order of age
Mick was a nickname for mavis (the baby) also it was took in 1932

Kraellin · #9 07-24-2005, 02:14 PM

palms,

much better

one thing, though. i still see 'sharpening blocks' when i zoom in. is your scanner doing this or are you treating it before you post it?

also, there's lots that can be done for this picture. the baby is pretty far gone, but the rest isnt too bad. i can even make out an eye on the other girl.

Craig

palms1 · #10 07-25-2005, 05:50 AM

What i am doing is putting into scanner selecting colour best (200dpi) then exporting to ps and saving as jpeg to get low enough compression to post, nothing else , and all i know about the scanner is that it scans !

This time i also have noticed that the older girl seems to have a pattern on her dress ! !

skipc · #11 07-25-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palms1

all i know about the scanner is that it scans !

Most scanner software applies sharpening—amongst other destructive adjustments

—by default. You can change the amount of sharpening applied, or choose "no sharpening" in scanner software Preferences...skip

Kraellin · #12 07-25-2005, 08:00 AM

palms,

maybe it's just the jpeg compression, but check the scanner preferences. if i zoom in pretty closely i definitely see sharpening blocks of some sort.

i loaded the image
added another layer and used Fast Fix on it for contrast and brightness
added an adjustment layer for curves with a blending mode set to luminance.

that's all i've done so far. there is more detail in the baby than i originally thought.

Craig

palms1 · #13 07-25-2005, 09:08 AM

Well had a look around in the scanner software preferences and found nothing, then had a look at the advanced settings (see below) and found descreening ? so ticked the box and done another scan see below, not sure if there is any differnce or not ,
Thanks Craig there is definately more detail there.

Kraellin · #14 07-25-2005, 12:06 PM

palms,

nope, it's still there. am enclosing a close up to show you what i mean. this is an 8:1 zoom, or thereabouts. notice how everything is in blocks. that's what i'm talking about when i say 'sharpening blocks'. i simply call it that because when i sharpen in paint shop pro i get the same thing.

check your custom settings and see if there isnt something in there for this. it may not have it and the scanner may just do this for everything being that it's only a 200 dpi scanner. i'd recommend getting at least a 300 dpi, though i see where some here claim 600 dpi is the best and that anything above that on prints is worthless.

at any rate, this isnt insurmountable. the picture can still be cleaned up. and where now you can see more of the data of the baby, this is why we like 'clean' scans. those 'blocks' alter the original data and where this data is sketchy already, the blocks can make it worse instead of better.

so, back to you now. would love to see the progress as you go. i wont be doing this one up full myself. got about 50,000 things i need to be working on

but will certainly help any if i can.

Craig

palms1 · #15 07-25-2005, 12:55 PM

Thanks yet again Craig for the info and yes i can see what you mean, I am able to scan at higher dpi, so will have a go at that soon and see if there is any difference ( have to hook up scanner as there are not enough plug sockets etc to keep it on all the time ) I have looked again and cannot find out about the sharpening which is maddening because as posted and reading up on the matter on a web page i cant find it anywhere but will not give up just yet, will keep you informed on how i get on though

Palms