Welcome to RetouchPRO, the web community for retouchers.
You are currently viewing as an unregistered guest which gives you limited access. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join RetouchPRO today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your password, click here.
| | Photo Restoration Repairing damaged photos | 
12-08-2001, 10:15 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Quick De-cracking Action results OK Tim, here's the results I got running the De-cracking action on 3 different cracked photos. I also compared the various High pass settings to see the results.
Here's the original version of the the first photo. It's the family photo from the Beyond Redemption restoration challenge.
DJ
Last edited by DJ Dubovsky : 12-08-2001 at 10:30 PM.
| 
12-08-2001, 10:17 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here's the same photo using the minimum high pass setting of 0.4. You can see a definate difference using the de-crack technique.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:19 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here's the same photo again at the medium setting of 1.5. The difference although significant from the original bares little difference from the minimum setting.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:22 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here's that photo at the high setting of 4.0. It seems to be little difference from the lowest setting of 0.4. I still think this is a good technique but I thought these results were interesting.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:22 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here is the second photo original condition.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:24 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here is that same photo after running de-crack on it. This was done at a high pass setting of 5.0 which is higher then the heaviest setting. There is little change in this photo. Not the drastic difference I noticed in the family photo.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:25 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here's the third photo I tried it on. This is the original photo.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:27 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Here it that same photo at a high pass setting of 5.0. Again there is not much difference from the original. I am not sure what the difference is from the first photo or other photos that it worked significantly on. This is just a demonstration of the varied results that can be expected in using this technique.
DJ | 
12-08-2001, 10:44 PM
|  | Janitor | | Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,870
| | Wow, DJ. That was a lot of work, and some very interesting results. It appears that this techique works best when the substrate paper is showing through (ie: much whiter than anything in the image). I guess we could cheat and manipulate the curve beforehand to make sure that was the case, then adjust back afterwards.
I notice in the bar scene he looks a little sleepier in the actioned one than in the original. Some eye detail changed. That's what makes me think this should be done only after we make sure the paper is the whitest thing in the image.
I wonder if there's an equal and opposite action for dark cracks and spots. Tim?  | 
12-08-2001, 11:01 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | Thanks Doug. It really wasn't that much work with that action. If I had to do it manually that might be the case.
Interesting observations on the bar scene and your ideas for building upon it's abilities.
Dj | 
12-09-2001, 05:24 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: northwest Indiana, about 45 minutes from Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,821
| | | Hey Debbie,
You really put it through it's paces. Interesting results for sure.
Ed | 
12-10-2001, 07:31 PM
|  | Junior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9
| | oops! Missed this thread! Debbie,
Sorry, I just noticed the thread... I'll take a deeper look, but some initial thoughts:
The Decrack action's intent is to isolate high-contrast noise and fill it with the 'minimum' filter, leaving the rest of the image alone if possible. The setting does not affect how quickly large cracks are filled, it simply determines how large and contrasty edges must be to be found. So, if you run the Decrack action at 0.4 for 3 iterations, you'll get the same amount of fill in large cracks as if you ran it at 1.5 the same number of times, but you'll have less impact on the actual image (assuming it's of low enough contrast).
Another limitation is that the filter uses the minimum filter to fill damage, meaning that it will grab dark values from nearby. Thus, dark damage will be amplified...
The first image looks like it has both the light/dark damage problem as well as having high-contrast elements in the image itself...
_Tim | 
12-10-2001, 07:39 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | Tim
I ran each version only once. I know the large cracks wouldn't be affected much and like I said, I love what it does when it works. My curiosity was on the first photo where I ran all 3 levels, one on each copy from the weakest to the heaviest setting but for sorme reason they all seem the same. I would have figured the difference would have been more noticable. Don't mistake my little observation as a put down. You did say it worked best under certain circumstances and I am thouroughly impressed with the results when it does work. It's still a valuable tool and one I shall use often, I'm sure. I was just curious and figured you would know what had happened in these situations. Thanks for responding Tim. I know sometimes these threads hide and I don't know why.
DJ | 
12-11-2001, 07:25 AM
|  | Junior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9
| | | an animation Debbie,
Here's an animation of the two extreme settings, 0.4 and 4.0, on your first example. I think the differences will be clear to you... They've been highlighted with a hue shift. Note that the 0.4 setting affects less of the actual image.
Sorry, the full-sized version was too big to upload, so I cropped and downshifted.
I don't mind the questions or observations... Maybe I can actually improve the thing!
_Tim | 
12-11-2001, 10:44 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,659
| | | OH Wow, I can see the difference now. It was hard to see the difference on my versions although I knew it should be there. That really brings it out well. Thanks Tim.
DJ |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 PM. | |
|