RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: alistquin on Sunday 15 January 12 10:43 GMT (UK)
-
Can this photograph be improved? It has a silvery metallic sheen that makes the subjects very difficult to see clearly.
Alistair
-
A little better I hope.
-
Hi Alistair, :)
Not much contrast in the red channel and a lot of noise in the blue, so worked on this in the green channel.
Regards George
-
Ma cara, George, thank you both!
I seem to recall when I posted a similar image before and Prue explained to me the cause of the metallic finish (I didn't write it down, but commited to memory - memory? Hmmmm!) that they're not easy to restore, so many thanks for taking the time.
Alistair
-
Alastair is this the original photo? If so can you rescan this as there seems to be alot of compression.
There is a great tutorial about how to resize to get it to the limit allowed if you need help here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,372537.0.html
Irene
-
Hi Irene,
It's not the original scan but a resized copy. I only use Picasa, which dropped the file size in a single step from over 625 kb down to 134 kb with nothing in between, so I used an online reducer, which I thought was reducing pixels and not resolution.
I'll need to look again, but later, as the kitchen calls!
Alistair
-
I've tried again with a different online process and this is the result - I hope it's better. :)
Alistair
-
I seem to recall when I posted a similar image before and Prue explained to me the cause of the metallic finish
Hi Alistair :)
Was it silver mirroring/silvering out that you're thinking of? I can't see any on your scan, but it's pretty easy to spot on an original photo so if you say it's there, it's there ;)
Cheers
Prue
-
There seems to be some possible evidence in top right and along the bottom (unless the bottom is a fade) but this photo's main problem seems to be one of those badly worn/pock marked ones rather than silvering that are ever so difficult to repair without blasting - I've got a couple and they are <swear words>
Does the original have the same rough appearance as the scan, Alistair?
gnu
-
I have to say it does look extremely grainy...and yes, I can see a bit of silvering now that I have put my glasses on ::) 8) (Thanks, gnu!)
-
Yes Prue, it a silvery coating all over the original, thicker looking or more obvious on the lighter parts of the print.
gnu, I'm looking at the original with the aid of a magnifying glass and it doesn't seem to be unduly worn or pock marked. It does though have a rough look but not feel, almost as if the silvery finish has been scattered on like glitter. So perhaps, and I'm only guessing, the metallic effect is either coming off slowly or else is revealing itself slowly.
Not very technical, I'm certain! ;D
Alistair
-
Hmm. Silvering out is found in areas of high density, i.e. the dark areas, as these are the ones with most silver in them. Highlights/pale areas have little or no silver in them, so they don't exhibit silvering out.
I wonder if you have one of the odd proof-type photos that I've seen a couple of times - I have a few, and there was one posted recently for restoration. They have an odd colour and metallic look to them that is not the same as silvering out, but I don't know what causes the effect. I think, being proofs, they were not processed very well - perhaps this is the case with your print?
-
I moved from my laptop to my desktop, Prue. It showed up on the bigger monitor ;D
This is a 200% zoom of it with saturation turned down. Looks like a mix of surface roughage and compression.
Maybe Alistair could send one of us a large scan, saved without compression, so that we could reduce it and put it up.
I'll PM him my e-mail.
gnu
-
This photograph is certainly different to any other I have. It's printed on a blue coloured slightly coarse paper and the photograph has a blueish look to it. The 'silvery' effect is not particularly evident on the dark areas but is very evident on the lighter areas.
I don't know wheter the date would help at all in your reflections Prue, but the baby in the photograph was born in 1893.
Ordinarily I would ignore the photograph save for the fact that it's the only image I've been able to find that displays the whole family at this stage in their lives.
Alistair
-
Hi
I've just resized the file that Alistair has sent. The original was nearly 1 MG when downloaded into PS. It's far sharper than the previous one but not sure.
I've got the large sized one if anyone would like that.
I'll have a go at it, Alistair, but it might be late tomorrow before I can finish it.
gnu
-
I've had a really good look at the new image and I think there is still a lot of compression, in addition to any defects in the original image.
The image, at 300%, is far too consistently blocky all over to be anything other than jpg compression. I've asked Alistair to rescan and to make sure that he saves to jpg without any compression (high quality/large file size in some progs).
gnu
-
My best shot, did anyone spot the cat between the girls legs? regards, John.
-
This photograph is certainly different to any other I have. It's printed on a blue coloured slightly coarse paper and the photograph has a blueish look to it. The 'silvery' effect is not particularly evident on the dark areas but is very evident on the lighter areas.
I don't know wheter the date would help at all in your reflections Prue, but the baby in the photograph was born in 1893.
Ordinarily I would ignore the photograph save for the fact that it's the only image I've been able to find that displays the whole family at this stage in their lives.
Alistair
Hi Alistair :)
A couple of things: firstly, I'm still not sure what is going on with your photo, and I suppose it's not that important, but I hate unanswered questions especially when it comes to photographs! ;D Thanks to gnu for trying to get a better image - I wonder if a photograph of the photo might be better for identification purposes (of course a scan is always better for restoration). I can't see the bluish look you describe and a photo might show this better.
Secondly, if the baby was born in 1893 then he or she is time travelling - this photo dates from somewhere around 1920-1930. There is no way that the mother, at least, would be dressed the way she is in the early 1890s.
Prue
-
hoobaloo, Many thanks for your contribution! :)
Prue,
That'll teach me to remember my gender and not to try and multi-task!! ;D
I was trying to do 3 things at the same time and one of them involved an 1893 DOB. You are quite correct, the baby was born in 1929.
I'm quite happy to photograph the photograph and upload, but I won't be able to do it until late tomorrow or Saturday morning.
Alistair
-
Hi Alistair
Here's mine. I've thrown nearly everything at it and then drawn/painted it back in and added a tiny bit of texture :)
gnu
-
gnu, Many thanks for that - I'm certain it wasn't a 5 minute job! ;D
Prue,
As promised, here is a photograph of the photograph. I've taken over a dozen as the light this morning is very bright and I can't seem to get one just right. I'm posting one of the lighter ones but if there is too much light bleeding in I can post a darker version.
Alistair
-
My effort, when it's all boiled down, is a compromise between blur and noise.
-
Just turning Alistair's photo around so that we can all see it more easily.
gnu
PS - Alistair it was more like a day's work if I add in all the inspections before I touched it - but I always do that with images ;D
-
Thanks Alistair (and gnu :) )
It's a curly one. I'm still not 100% sure, but I think having seen your photo of the photo, that it might be a print on uncoated paper - something like a salted paper print (see here http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/589_salted.html). That makes me think that it's a home-made photo, done by someone experimenting with old techniques.
I could be completely off the mark with this but that's what the surface appearance suggests to me!
The other option would be a paper with a matting agent (such as fine silica) applied to the surface, but I've only ever seen this type of paper used with fine studio prints, and the surface is much finer with the grains only apparent using magnification, so I don't really think this is the answer.
So, in short, I'm still puzzled ;D But thank you for letting me indulge my curiosity :) And you have had some great restorations done too, on a difficult photo :)
Cheers
Prue