Colors for Colorization

[LonK]

I think I'm getting the hang of colorization, but I often hit a roadblock. That is deciding what colors to use.

I have a scan of a photo of my grandfather taken some 100 years ago. He was born in 1899 if you want to guess. I've prepped it to the point where I'd be comfortable starting to add some color -- i.e. reducing the grain impact, bringing in detail in highlights, slight sepia tone, etc. It's generally at this point that I get stuck. What colors are appropriate? All I know is that he was Irish (nee Kelley).

Here's what I've done (the original on the left is 100% size of my .tif source.) I've no problem with skin tones, but eyes, hair and clothing is up for guessing. How do y'all choose colors for something like this?

(BTW, I use Ulead's PhotoImpact 8 as my primary editor.)

[Ed_L]

Nice picture! I'm guessing that because the eyes are rather light, the eye color is blue or green. Brown eyes generally photograph darker. Now we get to the hair. Are there any redheads in the family that would be directly related to him? The hair appears maybe a little too dark to be blonde. Could also be light brown. These are strictly guesses. Now to the clothing. You should be able to find vintage clothing (or reproductions) online. Check them out for possible color usage for the period of time. Others might have different opinions, and I'd like to see what others have to say. Welcome to RP!

Ed

[OnAir]

Very good correction. I would choose balanced, nearly sepia colorization, just some tiny differences in color. His dress is well detailed, so, if we add too much color, it would be distracting.

[LonK]

Yes, it is a pretty nice photo, Ed. I'd probably go with blue eyes -- just because I have blue eyes. As far as hair, hard to say, he was an only child, but all/most of his younger half-siblings (7 of them) were quintessential freckle-faced redheads. Of course he didn't have much hair left by the time I came along

I did look for vintage clothing, but most of what one can find is women's wear -- not much for men. It looks like for the most part, colors were very "earthy", muted, if you will. It sure is a crapshoot, innit? Any sources anyone might have would be appreciated.

OnAir, I always try to get a good base, thanks. Your go is probably quite close. I like it, but still feel more color is justified. I guess it's just a matter of educated guessing

Anyone else like to give it go? Y'all sure are helpful and supportive...

[Kraellin]

hair and eyes you've already covered, but blue and light brown seem ok to me. on his suit, as a guess, i'd say wool or wool-like, and that, for that time period, means black, with the lace as white. so, that's easy enough. so, the only real question here is not what color but how much. i like On_Air's, but i tend to agree, a bit more would be appropriate. if you can find any of the older 1900 to 1940 era photos where they were hand colored by the studio where they were taken, this is the way i would go. the colors are obvious, but a bit muted and often a bit grainy. my folks have some of these and if i have a scan of one somewhere, i'll try and post it for reference.

having just checked what i have on hand, i dont seem to have any of that type currently. i've got some old proofs, but those are different.

craig

[LonK]

Craig, you say, "...and that, for that time period, means black, with the lace as white. so, that's easy enough."

But is it? In another thread, Vikki wrote, "Finally, it doesn't appear as if you've colored his shirt. You'll have to add color to that, as nothing should be left gray."

I asked what should be done in the case of the white shirt, but got no reply. That confused me a bit.

Well for better or worse, this is what I came up with. Is there anything I might have done to make this even better?

[Kraellin]

that's a DAMN fine job!

i completely forgot about the shirt. as a guess, i'd say it wasnt blue, but more white-ish... but that's just a guess. one reason i say not blue is because i was coached in my early years not to wear blue with brown. so, if the coat is brown, the shirt likely isnt blue. however, i still believe the coat was originally very dark, probably black. and i'm not quite sure why you would 'leave nothing gray', but then she was talking about the shirt. if the original was gray, then leave it gray. if it was black, leave it black. but then, i'm not a colorizer either.

i like the eye color and the hair looks to be a compromise between those leaning towards red and those leaning towards light brown. i'd say it's also a good choice.

i'd say your skin tones are marvelous. the shading on the face is good; maybe just a shade dark on that one side, but good.

i think you lost a little texture in the coat. if i'm right about the wool, the coat would have a bit more of a fuzzy look to it. not much; brushed wool wasnt very fuzzy, but it did have texture. your coat is just a bit smooth. and maybe it's because of the smoothness, but the color of the coat seems a bit too saturated; not much and like i say, it may just be the smoothness fooling me there.

i love that you brought out the detail of the lace, the face, and shirt. great job there.

overall, i'll repeat..... DAMN fine job!

craig

[OnAir]

I'l put my five kopeck Agree with Kraellin, really looks fine. Agree again, I'd choose the color for his shirt more warm gray, but not bluish. Also for the background could be good, if you will add some blue (less reddish, than now and lighter a little) around his head, very tiny, just to feel the difference. Also you lost some color in upper left corner. I would make it more yellowish. Thus, you willl make it less flat. Anyway, what you did is great

[LonK]

Craig, after reading your post, I toyed with it somemore and agree with your assessment. I made the shirt more of a light tan and the jacket less red, more brown (almost black) and added some texture with grain. I won't bother showing as I'm sure you know what I mean.

OnAir, the background is almost completely replaced with one of the painted portrait backgrounds I have. The lighter "blotch" in the upper left bothered me as it seems to be a background light misdirected -- made the photo look unbalanced. I purposefully went with cooler blue, which recedes and brings more dimension to the photo. This is all so subjective.

I really appreciate your feedback.

[MajorSONAR]

Lonnie,

You did an awesome job with the coloring! I'm having a hard time creating realistic skin tones. Could you tell me what steps you used to color the skin, or perhaps post a link?

Thanks,
Kevin

[Kraellin]

lonk,

well, i'd still like to see it. your work is exemplary and worth showing. what little 'criticisms' i made were minor compared to the overall work done. so, i'd love to see it and in a slightly larger version if possible.

craig

[LonK]

Thanks, MajorSONAR. I’ve done only about a dozen colorizations, so I’m not really qualified to teach you much. Furthermore, I use PhotoImpact, which apparently few others use. The steps I use probably wouldn’t be of much help to you if you use another editor.

I can say, though, that I think it’s most important to begin with a solid base with a full range of tones. The more time I spend optimizing my base, the better my final results. Then, for skin/hair colors, my biggest asset is Bruce’s Skintones Color Chart and Hair Color Chart (found http://www.retouchpro.com/pages/colors.html). I primarily use a Colorize Pen tool to paint the color on a selection object, then tweak it with hue/sat and opacity adjustments. On top I overlay a gray adjustment layer to selectively darken/lighten or add minor color accents. “The devil’s in the details!”

I’m sure you can get some excellent guidance from the fine folks here at RP if you post some of your efforts. That’s certainly how I’ve learned.

[LonK]

OK, Craig. Here's the alternate colorization. Sadly, it loses a lot in the translation to JPEG. I'd love to show you something larger, but alas, this is the size of my original source. I do try to work on an enlarged version, but it is really sad with aweful JPEG artifacts, etc.

[Kraellin]

lonk,

excellent! spot-on!

and thank you for the extra posting!

craig

[Ed_L]

Top-notch job, Lonnie! The colors look great!! I really like the choice of background too. Very nice.

[LonK]

I want to thank y'all for the kudos. Ya really know how to boost someone's ego! I don't know any of ya from Adam, but when I see such responses from folks with 1000's of posts on this board, I expect they've seen and done a heck of lot more than I have. You've certainly given me impetus to charge ahead.

I have 100's of old family photos in various states of "abuse". Here's my next challenge. It's the same fella, a few years later, posing with his grandparents who essentially raised him. They'd be my great-great-grandparents! The photo was probably taken around 1912. Yes, this is the full size I have to work with (converted to JPEG for RP). The original is a scan in TIF format weighing in at about 650KB. The grain artifacts look to be a real joy to overcome. If anyone would like to take a shot at it, be my guest.

[philbach]

This is your picture after running Neat Image on it.

[LonK]

That's certainly a striking improvement, Phil. I've been seeing a number of references to "Neat Image". Is that a PS function or plugin? I wonder if I could use it with PhotoImpact. I guess I better do some research, eh?

This is what I came up with, partially through my process for establishing a good colorization base. I haven't reduced grain as much as you did, but I think I got a bit more detail in the highlights which I find helps later.

[shellby]

http://www.neatimage.com/

[Vikki]

Just a few comments about choosing colors. A great place to get ideas is to look at paintings, or color portraits.
When choosing skin colors, don't limit yourself to one particular color (no one's face is one single color, unless you're in a Willy Wonka movie). The same color theory goes for everything else in the image as well.
If you're going to be coloring a lot of images, it might be worthwhile to check out some sites offering information about period styles, color, and fashion.

Hope you don't mind a critique on the Neat Image technique....
For some reason, it looks as just the skin has been smoothed and softened, while the clothing looks crisp. I would try to even that out, so that the texture/noise/grain is more uniform.

All that said, here's my version.

[philbach]

Another filter that works with your photo besides Neat Image is Photoshops (CS-2) Surface Blur. I used a Radius of 11 and a Threshold of 30 on your photo.

[Kraellin]

Neat Image is a noise reduction plugin. there is a free version, which can only be used as a stand-alone program, and the pro, pay-for version, which can be used stand-alone or as a plugin. it's a good program, but has a bit of a learning curve to it. you'll see it mentioned on retouch a LOT.

however, since going to paint shop pro 9 (and now 10), i prefer the routine for noise reduction in it. it's called 'digital camera noise removal' and is as good as or better than Neat Image and has a smaller learning curve.

you'll also want to check out Polaroid's Dust and Scratch removal program. this one is a free plugin from Polaroid and can also be used as a stand-alone.

i'm attaching two images here. the first is one using just psp's digital noise removal. in this one i attempted to remove as much noise as possible using just it and nothing else. the second is one using digi noise removal AND polaroid's D&S. the point being here that often a combination of programs using a bit less strength in each can produce a better effect than just the one when used at a higher strength.

psp does a great job by itself, but you have to sometimes do a lot 'blending' to get it all. polaroid uses a different method and by itself will tend to do a lot of blurring and blending to get all the noise as well. but, when the two are combined and you dont try to do it all with one program, this can often work very well together.

notice in the first one that there is a fair amount of smudging in order to get rid of the noise. and in the second one that there is more detail. also notice by doing an overlay of these two images, that the one using the polaroid has a tendency to wipe out some areas. this could have been prevented by using a mask or selection. i didnt here just for the sake of demonstration. the wiping of some areas was from the polaroid plugin because of the way it does its routine. even with fairly low settings this is going to happen in the polaroid one as a plugin. as a stand-alone you can adjust the mask in d&S and prevent this. as a plugin you are expected to mask first and then use the routine. so, it's a bit tricky at times.

craig

[LonK]

Thanks all for the suggestions and tips. I'm off to DL Neat Image and the Polaroid tool and try them out.

[LonK]

Here's my final result. How'd I do?

[studioj]

Great work!!!

Does neatimage works on Mac?

[OnAir]

Very well done! Your colorization has developed individuality of people on the photograph, especially red-headed boy behind. Clothing looks very nice also. Did you have a sample for the chosen colors?

[philbach]

Lonk very nice. The colors are very pleasing to me.

StudioJ. Neat Image is available for the Mac.

[LonK]

Thanks guys.

Yes, studioj, NeatImage is available for Mac on their site. I didn't use it on this though. I did run it through Kodak GEM once.

OnAir, I used different skin tones for each to differentiate. I had no color samples for anything. It's all just guessing. I did take advice given in this thread and looked at many painted portraits of that time period to get a feel for appropriate colors. Also, since I was a portrait photographer for 15 years, I know people rarely dress to compliment each other for a group photo. They dress for their own tastes only -- of course in those days, most country folk only had one set of "Sunday best", so it wasn't really a matter of choice. I tried to similate that kind of situation a bit. As a cabinet maker for another 15 years, I figured the chair was red mahogany, so went with that to base my color choice. The colors in the rug seemed likely for that style of weave -- kind of persian. Hair was a toss-up. Gray is a real PITA. The tints in the background were chosen based on classically stylized painted portrait backdrops. In the end I felt it all came together quite realistically and most certainly an improvement on what I had to work with.

[Skyarcher]

Originally Posted by Vikki

Just a few comments about choosing colors. A great place to get ideas is to look at paintings, or color portraits.
When choosing skin colors, don't limit yourself to one particular color (no one's face is one single color, unless you're in a Willy Wonka movie). The same color theory goes for everything else in the image as well.
If you're going to be coloring a lot of images, it might be worthwhile to check out some sites offering information about period styles, color, and fashion.

Hope you don't mind a critique on the Neat Image technique....
For some reason, it looks as just the skin has been smoothed and softened, while the clothing looks crisp. I would try to even that out, so that the texture/noise/grain is more uniform.

All that said, here's my version.

Vikki, I love the colors and tones in this version on his face and hair.

[Kraellin]

ok, lonk, how nit-picky do you want me to get here

first off, i'll say i doubt i could do any better. my problem is that i can see better than i can correct, so take anything i say on this with that in mind. it's currently my biggest frustration that i cant meet what i know shld be, which may be why i get so nit-picky with others

i'll just mention a couple of things to start. i doubt her blouse has any violet in it, but there is a violet cast in there in your image. the boy looks really good. the man's white beard looks just a tiny bit pasted on and the same with that shock of hair on his right side... too much contrast between the hair and surriounding areas. there also seems to be a bit too much orange in the old man's face. the woman's face is a bit too pasty.

all that being said, it's still a very good job and like i mentioned earlier, far better than what i could do myself. if i were grading it i would give it an A- .

and vikki, that is an excellent job!

craig