restoration of old photos, any ideas ?

beachy · 30-01-2006, 11:47 AM

[FONT="Arial Black"][FONT="Arial"][FONT="Arial Black"][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

i have a couple of quite old photos taken in the 50's which are fairly damaged, while i do have photoshop myself it is very new to me and i think it may take some skill time and patience to restore these, so i wondered if anyone knows of any companys or photographic shops that could do these for me and what it may cost, any help would be much appreciated.

many thanks.

ush flynn · 30-01-2006, 12:13 PM

Most big labs will charge you through the nose to do this, im talking small scratches and cracks will cost you around 35-50 where as if there are stains or cracks over peoples faces your looking at 80 upwards. If you find someone willing to do it in thier spare time you might get it done for a lot less. Before i got my job in design i used to do it through the small adds for about 40-50% of what kodak labs charge

hottstuff · 30-01-2006, 12:22 PM

photoshop does this np.

richard plumb · 30-01-2006, 12:33 PM

What exactly are you trying to acheive? Do you have an example you could post to show what state they are in?

I think sometimes really old photos have added value from minor things like scratches/fading etc. i.e Its not always necessary to go nuts improving things.

ush flynn · 30-01-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hottstuff

photoshop does this np.

Are you talking about photoshops tools or the program itself?

He already said he didnt think he had the knowledge to use photoshop to take on this task. Sure things like auto levels might take out any orange casts but its not always right, and the clone tool might be handy but it can look a mess if your not careful

hottstuff · 30-01-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ush flynn

Are you talking about photoshops tools or the program itself?

He already said he didnt think he had the knowledge to use photoshop to take on this task. Sure things like auto levels might take out any orange casts but its not always right, and the clone tool might be handy but it can look a mess if your not careful

well i wouldnt consider myself photoshop compatible , but thats one thing i could do easy.

beachy · 30-01-2006, 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard plumb

What exactly are you trying to acheive? Do you have an example you could post to show what state they are in?

I think sometimes really old photos have added value from minor things like scratches/fading etc. i.e Its not always necessary to go nuts improving things.

well these are the pics one of them is just a cropped head and shoulders of the original, i'm basically looking to get them cleaned up and sharpened in 6x4 0r 7x5 if possible.

hottstuff · 30-01-2006, 1:28 PM

scratch removal and then added sharpness , should make it better.
and there is software out there to add colour too.

beachy · 30-01-2006, 1:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hottstuff

scratch removal and then added sharpness , should make it better.
and there is software out there to add colour too.

i can't upload the other one as it is 254kb, this is the one that is particulurly damaged is there any way of showing it on here ?

ush flynn · 30-01-2006, 1:39 PM

if you want to sharpen your image do this ... ill try and explain as easy as i can and this applies for PS7 which i have at home and CS2 which we use at work

Open you image and select Image>Mode>LAB colour (color grr)
then on your payers pallette choose the Channels tab
instead of your normal RGB channels your should now have
Lab
Lightness
a
b
if you need to know what these are ill try explain in a pm but for now just select the Lightness channel
now select Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp mask
have a play with threshold and radius to see what you like, over sharpening looks horrible so keep it all fairly low if you can, it should Live preview onto your main image so you can keep an eye on part of it, say a face.
your image will be in black and white but dont worry about that the original cast will come back in a second
Right once your happy with that go back to Image>Mode> RGB or CMYK whatever you work with
and tada, you sharpened your image the proper way!

stevegreen · 30-01-2006, 1:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachy

i can't upload the other one as it is 254kb, this is the one that is particulurly damaged is there any way of showing it on here ?

You have a PM

stevegreen · 30-01-2006, 3:10 PM

Here's the other picture

beachy · 30-01-2006, 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevegreen

Here's the other picture

thanks steve.

jaymac · 30-01-2006, 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachy

i can't upload the other one as it is 254kb, this is the one that is particulurly damaged is there any way of showing it on here ?

Hi Beachy have a lookat a site called yousendit .com you can upload a file much much larger than that you give them the address of who you want to send it to they notify them and then they download it. If you like You cansend me a PM and I'll go through it with you
Jay

beachy · 30-01-2006, 7:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaymac

Hi Beachy have a lookat a site called yousendit .com you can upload a file much much larger than that you give them the address of who you want to send it to they notify them and then they download it. If you like You cansend me a PM and I'll go through it with you
Jay

thanks jay but steve already posted it for me on paragraph 12 (see attached thumbnails) i was having trouble downloading it on here for some reason, thanks all the same mate

p.s. but if you or anyone else out there would like to restore them for me feel free, yes i know what a cheek

Mr.D · 30-01-2006, 7:32 PM

Its all doable. The full photo would need major reconstruction down the fold line. You are going to be able to do very little with the right corner although you could remove the remnant of the other kid on the right, clean it up and extend it slightly to give you a straight edge.
if you had another picture of the kid on the right it might be possible to composite them back into the shot with varying results depending on lighting.

If you wanted me to do it professionally you'd be looking at 500quid an hour!
I'd say its probably doable to a decent standard in about 5 hours.

If you get stuck I can take a look at it but I'm very busy until after april and I'd only handle it as a digital file , you can get the scanning/printing done elsewhere. ( I won't charge you 500quid an hour though!).

Most so-called retouchers would balk at the amount of manual reconstruction required down the middle of the image I suspect. Recontructing the babies face will be the trickiest bit . You'd effectively have to draw in the missing detail.

I personally wouldn't advise you sharpen it but try and reconstruct a seemingly "mint" antique photograph. The softness will add to the charm . Sharpening is easy though , pretty automated process even if you get clever with it.

pjclark1 · 30-01-2006, 7:33 PM

You need to post scans at 300dpi minimum for anyone here to restore it.

Not worth working on anything the size you posted.

jaymac · 30-01-2006, 7:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachy

thanks jay but steve already posted it for me on paragraph 12 (see attached thumbnails) i was having trouble downloading it on here for some reason, thanks all the same mate

p.s. but if you or anyone else out there would like to restore them for me feel free, yes i know what a cheek

Thats what I meant beachy if you want to send them to me do so but sent without compressing IE psd or psp

PM me and I'll give you my email address
Jay

stevegreen · 30-01-2006, 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.D

If you wanted me to do it professionally you'd be looking at 500quid an hour!
I'd say its probably doable to a decent standard in about 5 hours.

-------> Steve runs off to learn photoshop inside out!

beachy · 30-01-2006, 9:30 PM

[QUOTE=Mr.D].

If you wanted me to do it professionally you'd be looking at 500quid an hour!
I'd say its probably doable to a decent standard in about 5 hours.

yes i'm with steve on that one, be great to work a couple of hours a week at that rate.

.

Mr.D · 30-01-2006, 9:54 PM

[QUOTE=beachy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.D

.

If you wanted me to do it professionally you'd be looking at 500quid an hour!
I'd say its probably doable to a decent standard in about 5 hours.

yes i'm with steve on that one, be great to work a couple of hours a week at that rate.

.

That's not what I'd get paid I hasten to add . That's about the going rate you'd get charged for one hours work ( although its normally totalled by the 8 hour day). Its not photoshop either.

I'd probably do it in my spare time for a really good bottle of malt . (over 50quid)

ush flynn · 31-01-2006, 10:45 AM

Same id have done it back before this job for around 50-75, ive not looked at it properly but going by what Mr. D says its pretty dooable just takes time
but really 500 and hour mate? ive not seen rates like that in a long time! i know a few video editors who charge nearly that much... and doing things in real time means you pay out a hell of a lot of money!

ush flynn · 31-01-2006, 10:46 AM

and by the way Mr. D what software would you use if you dont mind me asking? a corel man?

Mr.D · 31-01-2006, 10:54 AM

I'd probably do it in Shake. Which is primarily a compositing package although it has a simple paint module. Mixture of paint and comp work would be how I'd approach it , some people would do entirely as paint but compositing is easier to tweak.

I'm a senior film compositor hence the rate , but that would be about the standard rate at most places for 1 hours worth of compositing time on a film. And I won't see that much of it!

ush flynn · 31-01-2006, 12:20 PM

aha so well qualified! i might check shake out some time, Is it on Mac? im sure one of our guys has it somewhere

Mr.D · 31-01-2006, 12:31 PM

It runs on Macs and linux boxes. There is an older version that runs on windows but it stopped development a couple of years ago. ( 2.1 or 2.5 i think)

Geordie Jester · 31-01-2006, 12:33 PM

I recently had a stab at this sort of thing for a mate.

Im certainly no artist though, which is what you really need when it comes down to reconstructing.

But if you close one eye and squint I think I did ok !

Have a play with clone brushes/layers etc

beachy · 31-01-2006, 12:59 PM

looks like you got some nice results there geordie, i have only just acquired photoshop elements 4 so all very much a new learning curve for me,as i was using picasa just for basic tweaking no comparison to photoshop though, and also i'm very new to digital photography so hopefully in time i can acquire the skills for it all,i must say this site has been a great help.

but i am very impressed with the photos you've posted here, one of the guys on here has very kindly offered to have a go at my photos so i emailed them to him and will post them when i get them back.

ush flynn · 31-01-2006, 1:06 PM

yeah not a bad job there, flesh is always hard, i see the hand must have given you problems! but the bottom right one looks good, nice to get some colour in there, the bottom two i think are a little dark, thier leather shoes are almost lost against the background where as they arent at all in the original

pjclark1 · 31-01-2006, 1:40 PM

I always think the less you have to do the better the result.