[lurch]

I've been restoring a bunch of old family photos, and this is one of them. It's a scan of a 35 mm contact print found in a box of old stuff. Looks like my Dad took a photo of a photo that was originally taken in the early 1900s. There are several of these.

One attached version has the exposure tweaked using Photoshop CS3's Shadow/Highlight command and the other one was done the old fashioned way with levels, curves, and blend-ifs. Which outcome do you all like better? (I'm not going to say which is which, at least not yet.) I've done nothing else so far, so there's still lots of grunge there. This is just the starting point. I've also included the original, because someone will surely ask for it.

Looking forward to your feedback . . .

Carole

[Kraellin]

well, #3 is the best of the lot. the others have blown out whites.

[Alison]

I'm going with #3 as well

[Charlene5]

Number three definitely.

[Ducu]

Number 3 is the one.

[Dave.Cox]

# 3 looks the best.

[Graphics23]

I also like #3 best.

#2 is my second choise.

Is #1 the original?

I would venture a guess and say that #3 is the one you used Shadow/Highlight on. It has that telltale look in the shadows. But I think it's a little too much to ask of Shadow/Highlight, which I feel is best used for more subtle adjusting.

I suggest you also try creating two versions using Image>Adjustments>Exposure. The Exposure and Gamma settings in that dialog can work wonders. This would be very similar to some of the false profile moves that Dan Margulis teaches. I believe it's chapter 15 of his latest book.

Make one version for highlights and one for shadows, then merge them with a layer mask and/or Blend If to pull the best detail out of each as well as compensate for the uneven fading.

Then maybe fine tune with Shadow/Highlight after doing Stamp Visible.

Good luck,

Michael

[lurch]

Don't think I've ever seen such unanimity in these forums! #3 is also my favorite of the alternatives given, but there was something about it I couldn't put my finger on. Plus, as Michael guessed, it was the one done the easy way and my Puritanical streak felt guilty about that.

Michael, you were right about all three; #1 was the original. I tried your recommendation about using the exposure command. Had never used it before. It worked a charm. Took some tinkering with curving a suitable layer mask (blend-if didn't work well for me at all), but the outcome was more satisfying than the first two. The result is attached - again nothing done to it but correcting exposure and contrast. I'll send the workflow (at least what I can remember of it) to anyone who's interested. Just PM me.

Carole

[zganie]

Number 2 Why? because I think there was not any information in the blown out highlights and when restoring a photo you should try to keep it original plus when you try putting information where there was not any it tends to make the print look muddy

just an opinion zganie

[lurch]

zganie - I knew once I said unanimous someone would show up with a different opinion! And you supplied the perfect word for #3 - muddy. Couldn't agree with you more about keeping a restoration to the original. In this case all that is available is a tiny, old copy photo (photocopy in the original sense ), so who knows what the original really looked like. We only know it was most likely less contrasty than the copy. How much less is anybody's guess.

I do have to disagree with you about there being no information in the highlights, though. Except for the sky which is truly blown out, there is variation in the light parts - none of the things done to the image added information, just brought it out. The trick, as you've pointed out, is not to overdo it and make the image muddy.

And I did ask for opinions, didn't I? Yours is a good one.

Carole