Can this be improved?

[PrueM]

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    (Thanks, gnu!)

[alistquin]

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!  

Alistair

[PrueM]

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?

[Gadget]

I moved from my laptop to my desktop, Prue. It showed up on the bigger monitor 

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

[alistquin]

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

[Gadget]

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

[Gadget]

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

[hoobaloo]

My best shot, did anyone spot the cat between the girls legs? regards, John.

[PrueM]

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!    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