Photo Restoration - 1922 Photo

VCOOPER · #31 04-29-2007, 02:05 AM

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u148/vrcoop/Lady.jpg

Thanks again to all of you. BillFrey the image has been posted as you requested. I used the advice of Photobucket and joined

BillFrey · #32 04-29-2007, 03:08 AM

Thanks for taking the trouble to repost.

This new photo is smaller than the original you posted, but it's in better condition... there appears to be much less jpg artifacts.

Did photobucket reduce the size of the file or did you upload a smaller one?

If you have the larger version, could you please upload that one?

If photobucket has a size limitation, I know you can upload a max 1.5 meg file to http://www.imageshack.us/index.php ... no registration needed.

Thanks

chillin · #33 04-29-2007, 03:23 AM

Kraellin You again inspired me to do some work. I like your job.

Dave.Cox · #34 04-29-2007, 10:29 AM

Hard to do too much with such a low resolution image, but this is looks a little better.

VCOOPER · #35 04-29-2007, 12:54 PM

Good morning, BillFrey I have reposted the lady at Photobucket. The maximum file size of 1 meg, so it should be much better this time.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...oop/Lady-1.jpg

BillFrey · #36 04-29-2007, 01:40 PM

Thanks again

I'm getting approximately the same file size as before, but I found out what's going on with photobucket.

There is a size limitation... I found this at their forum.

If you have a free account, the maximum size is 1024 x 768 Pixels (or 1 MB depending on your settings). If you are uploading images larger than this, Photobucket will resize them, and possibly cause distortion or fuzziness. We suggest you resize before you upload.

I'll use this photo, I don't want to drive you crazy uploading

unimatrix001 · #37 04-29-2007, 02:59 PM

gave this a shot ... i havent gotten very good with the clone and healing brush so i use the patch tool for all my work.
patch tool to remove scratchs
ran through noiseware to reduce noise used default settings

Kraellin · #38 05-01-2007, 12:13 AM

thanks, chillin

yours looks good as well.

just one small item i'd warn about here. the lighting has given the woman a goatee. i find it perfectly ok, even though i'm rather adamant about restoring to the original image, to remove such oddities.

VCOOPER · #39 05-01-2007, 02:06 AM

I continue to arrive at the painted on look with a lack of skin texture, is it that once the picture is so distorted you can only arrive at a certain restore point,
I have used the smudge tool for the majority of the work by enlarging the photo view and attempting to blend the pixels, a disaster I think :0
It just seems that the facial rebuild, I cannot draw, are beyond me for how to have skin texture.
I think the Family 40 is more difficult than the 1922 photo, maybe because of the destruction factor.
I think each of you that have worked on both of them are super, I am striving to get to your levels.
Thanks.

Kraellin · #40 05-01-2007, 08:01 AM

vcooper,

'smudge' tends to, well, smudge. that removes grain. grain gives texture. so, there ya go. but, that's not to say 'never use smudge' either. faces are tricky. faces have texture/grain. 'clone' copies. and, if done right, will copy texture/grain from one place to another. of course, there's a risk there too. you can get too much of the copy and end up with rather odd looking skin filled with lots of 'clone marks'. airbrush/spraypaint adds or covers. and when set to a low density (not opacity) can add grain/texture.

thus, i like to set my clone tool(s) to a fairly low opacity and copy texture from one place to another, but little by little and drawing from ALL of the surrounding area. i tend to then follow this up with some airbrushing to smooth out the look and add grain where necessary, but at a low density so it's not just a brushstroke effect. i may or may not then follow this up with a very light, like opacity 18 or so, smudge, just to even out the look a bit.

you can also mask an area, like the skin on a face and simply use the 'add noise' filter. this is usually set fairly low, and in a black and white image like this, set to 'monochrome'.

when i first started doing this stuff years ago, i used a LOT of smudge. and then i found the clone tool. that changed everything. you can still end up with a 'pasty' face using clone, so it's a bit of an art form. i usually start out with clone set at about 60% opacity and as i work out the larger areas to smaller and gross work to finer, i lower that opacity, getting as low as 18 or so sometimes. it's a bit of a trick and about all i can say is, practice, practice, practice.

VCOOPER · #41 05-05-2007, 08:08 PM

Note to Kraellin, today I am sharing the photo restore you did with one of the family members who have never seen this beautiful lady. Will let you know how she sees it.

BillFrey wanted you to know that I am faithfully checking everyday to see what happened as you went to work on the picture using the brush stroke.

Kraellin · #42 05-05-2007, 11:20 PM

vcooper,

thank you. i'd be very happy to hear the results.

i'd also be very happy if you continue your own work. it's very easy in this business to say, 'i'll never be as good as so and so' and to then just give it up. Flora, who is a moderator here and one of the best retouchers/restorers/and general all around great photoshoppers i've ever seen used to post more often and i'd look at her work and just go 'wow!'. and the 2nd reaction was, 'boy, would i love to be that good', and the third reaction was, 'how can i ever expect to be that good?'. it's that third reaction you have to not listen to. i'm still not nearly as good as she is on most things, but once in a while... just once every great while, i can compare something i've done to something she's also done and go, 'there, i made it! that's how good i wanted to be with this stuff' and know that persistence and study and practice do pay off.