Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Photo Restoration?

Reply
Thread Tools

Photo Restoration?

 
 
babalooixnay@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2006
I elected myself to digitize the family photos and I'm having a problem
with portraits done in the late forties to mid-fifties. It was popular
then to print on a textured paper which is showing through as patterns.
Any direct light accentuates the problem so I took to using soft
reflected light on to the originals but still with noticeable pattern
showing through. I didn't want to soften the focus as many are group
shots of wedding parties or similar shots with intricate detail.
Question is can anyone point me toward a Photoshop technique for
removing the pattern. A lot of the pattern comes through much like
noise and sharpening of course makes it worse. I'm sure there's a
technique for blurring in the noise on a layer and then selectively
doing local sharpening afterward. Any suggestions?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gene F. Rhodes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2006
I would try photographing it with a ring light.
Gene

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I elected myself to digitize the family photos and I'm having a problem
> with portraits done in the late forties to mid-fifties. It was popular
> then to print on a textured paper which is showing through as patterns.
> Any direct light accentuates the problem so I took to using soft
> reflected light on to the originals but still with noticeable pattern
> showing through. I didn't want to soften the focus as many are group
> shots of wedding parties or similar shots with intricate detail.
> Question is can anyone point me toward a Photoshop technique for
> removing the pattern. A lot of the pattern comes through much like
> noise and sharpening of course makes it worse. I'm sure there's a
> technique for blurring in the noise on a layer and then selectively
> doing local sharpening afterward. Any suggestions?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Colin D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2006


(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> I elected myself to digitize the family photos and I'm having a problem
> with portraits done in the late forties to mid-fifties. It was popular
> then to print on a textured paper which is showing through as patterns.
> Any direct light accentuates the problem so I took to using soft
> reflected light on to the originals but still with noticeable pattern
> showing through. I didn't want to soften the focus as many are group
> shots of wedding parties or similar shots with intricate detail.
> Question is can anyone point me toward a Photoshop technique for
> removing the pattern. A lot of the pattern comes through much like
> noise and sharpening of course makes it worse. I'm sure there's a
> technique for blurring in the noise on a layer and then selectively
> doing local sharpening afterward. Any suggestions?


If you are using a scanner with a single lamp, the problem is the photo
is lit from one side only, causing the texture to show up. If you can
find or afford a higher-spec scannner that has dual lamps, like the
Canon 9950F, the problem is greatly lessened.

If you are using a camera, then two lamps on opposite sides at 45
degrees to the photo should give you reasonable results.

There is a problem I have run into when copying textured or
stipple-surfaced papers, which is the image tones are 'modulated' by the
stipple pattern. The image density in the 'valleys' of the texture is
lighter than the 'peaks'. I don't know whether this is because the
emulsion thickness is reduced in the valleys by the patterning, or
whether the print developer doesn't get to the valleys as fast as to the
peaks. Whatever, even after scanning with a dual-lamp scanner and
eliminating the texture, there remains these myriad white dots in the
grays and blacks that are damn near impossible to remove without
excessive blurring of the image. In my b/w darkroom days, if I pulled a
print early from the developer because the the print was a bit
overexposed, this 'modulation' patterning was quite obvious, so I
suspect it is a development problem.

Good luck,

Colin D.
 
Reply With Quote
 
babalooixnay@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2006

Colin D wrote:
>
> There is a problem I have run into when copying textured or
> stipple-surfaced papers, which is the image tones are 'modulated' by the
> stipple pattern. The image density in the 'valleys' of the texture is
> lighter than the 'peaks'. I don't know whether this is because the
> emulsion thickness is reduced in the valleys by the patterning, or
> whether the print developer doesn't get to the valleys as fast as to the
> peaks. Whatever, even after scanning with a dual-lamp scanner and
> eliminating the texture, there remains these myriad white dots in the
> grays and blacks that are damn near impossible to remove without
> excessive blurring of the image. In my b/w darkroom days, if I pulled a
> print early from the developer because the the print was a bit
> overexposed, this 'modulation' patterning was quite obvious, so I
> suspect it is a development problem.


Your description fits a number of the problem prints, especially those
with the more pronounced stipling, I started with two lights at
forty-five degrees and about two and a half times the diagonal of the
print away, sort of standard copy stand. I was getting the white spots
that look like specular highlights in patterns that matched the surface
of the print. I layered all the lights with up to 6 layers of white
chiffon and still couldn't make any headway. I ended up directing all
of the lights away from the print and reflected some light back with
matte white paper. Still have the patterns but to a much lesser
degree. They are tolerable for copies at 100% but at two hundred
percent really noticeable. I know some really elaborate methods in PS
but I'm hoping something simple and elegant might come along. Many of
the photos were taken by the same studio and he liked a background that
went from upper light to lower dark and the worst of the specular
looking grain is in the upper sections. It wouldn't be hard to
eliminate it from the background but it shows up in a lot of faces as
well. Fortunately that textured print paper only lies in about a ten
year period and almost all of it in wedding portraits. Thanks.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ben brugman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2006
You could try to make several pictures, all exactly the same in
position, but with varying lightning.

Then in Photoshop or another tool that allows manipulation with
several pictures, try to extract one picture from another.
You might be able to isolate the pattern (abit) then use this
pattern again on one of the pictures to get rid of the pattern.

I doubt that this method will eliminate the pattern, but I think
that there must be combinations which do improve the pictures.

Example (very oversimplified).
A. picture with extreem pattern
B. picture with a little bit off pattern.

Make a C which is the difference between A and B. (A - B),
which will give the pattern.
Then subtract the C from the B so that the pattern gets
suptracted from B.

ben
<(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> Colin D wrote:
>>
>> There is a problem I have run into when copying textured or
>> stipple-surfaced papers, which is the image tones are 'modulated' by the
>> stipple pattern. The image density in the 'valleys' of the texture is
>> lighter than the 'peaks'. I don't know whether this is because the
>> emulsion thickness is reduced in the valleys by the patterning, or
>> whether the print developer doesn't get to the valleys as fast as to the
>> peaks. Whatever, even after scanning with a dual-lamp scanner and
>> eliminating the texture, there remains these myriad white dots in the
>> grays and blacks that are damn near impossible to remove without
>> excessive blurring of the image. In my b/w darkroom days, if I pulled a
>> print early from the developer because the the print was a bit
>> overexposed, this 'modulation' patterning was quite obvious, so I
>> suspect it is a development problem.

>
> Your description fits a number of the problem prints, especially those
> with the more pronounced stipling, I started with two lights at
> forty-five degrees and about two and a half times the diagonal of the
> print away, sort of standard copy stand. I was getting the white spots
> that look like specular highlights in patterns that matched the surface
> of the print. I layered all the lights with up to 6 layers of white
> chiffon and still couldn't make any headway. I ended up directing all
> of the lights away from the print and reflected some light back with
> matte white paper. Still have the patterns but to a much lesser
> degree. They are tolerable for copies at 100% but at two hundred
> percent really noticeable. I know some really elaborate methods in PS
> but I'm hoping something simple and elegant might come along. Many of
> the photos were taken by the same studio and he liked a background that
> went from upper light to lower dark and the worst of the specular
> looking grain is in the upper sections. It wouldn't be hard to
> eliminate it from the background but it shows up in a lot of faces as
> well. Fortunately that textured print paper only lies in about a ten
> year period and almost all of it in wedding portraits. Thanks.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
vixen2yall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Colin D wrote:
>
>>There is a problem I have run into when copying textured or
>>stipple-surfaced papers, which is the image tones are 'modulated' by the
>>stipple pattern. The image density in the 'valleys' of the texture is
>>lighter than the 'peaks'. I don't know whether this is because the
>>emulsion thickness is reduced in the valleys by the patterning, or
>>whether the print developer doesn't get to the valleys as fast as to the
>>peaks. Whatever, even after scanning with a dual-lamp scanner and
>>eliminating the texture, there remains these myriad white dots in the
>>grays and blacks that are damn near impossible to remove without
>>excessive blurring of the image. In my b/w darkroom days, if I pulled a
>>print early from the developer because the the print was a bit
>>overexposed, this 'modulation' patterning was quite obvious, so I
>>suspect it is a development problem.

>
>
> Your description fits a number of the problem prints, especially those
> with the more pronounced stipling, I started with two lights at
> forty-five degrees and about two and a half times the diagonal of the
> print away, sort of standard copy stand. I was getting the white spots
> that look like specular highlights in patterns that matched the surface
> of the print. I layered all the lights with up to 6 layers of white
> chiffon and still couldn't make any headway. I ended up directing all
> of the lights away from the print and reflected some light back with
> matte white paper. Still have the patterns but to a much lesser
> degree. They are tolerable for copies at 100% but at two hundred
> percent really noticeable. I know some really elaborate methods in PS
> but I'm hoping something simple and elegant might come along. Many of
> the photos were taken by the same studio and he liked a background that
> went from upper light to lower dark and the worst of the specular
> looking grain is in the upper sections. It wouldn't be hard to
> eliminate it from the background but it shows up in a lot of faces as
> well. Fortunately that textured print paper only lies in about a ten
> year period and almost all of it in wedding portraits. Thanks.
>

question: and i don't do a whole lotta prints but i do have a few
scanned photos w/ the issues your discussing.

if you were to take two digital copies of the same photo and soften the
background copy to the point where the white dots disappear, and then
layer the second copy over the top (PS); would that remove the white
dots w/o too much data loss? neither of you mentioned if you had tried
this, but seems like it would be a quick fix for your problem. mind you
there would have be some adjustments made to the top layer (opac), and
adjustments to the background layer so there isn't a halo effect over
every object in the photo. (have no idea how to restrain that unless
it's done w/ a masking tool prior to soften filtering. i'm sure a ps
news group would know.) but seems like it wouldn't be very difficult
once you figure out how to get it to work right.

just a thought
cheers
kat
 
Reply With Quote
 
Isaiah Beard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2006
Colin D wrote:

> If you are using a scanner with a single lamp, the problem is the photo
> is lit from one side only, causing the texture to show up. If you can
> find or afford a higher-spec scannner that has dual lamps, like the
> Canon 9950F, the problem is greatly lessened.


Another possibility is to use a Canon CIS (Contact Image Sensor)
scanner, like any of their LIDE scanners, or the Pixma MP500 All-In-One.
The CIS scanners use LEDs instead of lamps, allowing the light to be
applied head-on instead of at an angle. The distance between the platen
glass and the sensor is also greatly reduced.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gene F. Rhodes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2006
Another method is to submerge the print in water and photograph it.
Gene

"Gene F. Rhodes" wrote:

> I would try photographing it with a ring light.
> Gene
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > I elected myself to digitize the family photos and I'm having a problem
> > with portraits done in the late forties to mid-fifties. It was popular
> > then to print on a textured paper which is showing through as patterns.
> > Any direct light accentuates the problem so I took to using soft
> > reflected light on to the originals but still with noticeable pattern
> > showing through. I didn't want to soften the focus as many are group
> > shots of wedding parties or similar shots with intricate detail.
> > Question is can anyone point me toward a Photoshop technique for
> > removing the pattern. A lot of the pattern comes through much like
> > noise and sharpening of course makes it worse. I'm sure there's a
> > technique for blurring in the noise on a layer and then selectively
> > doing local sharpening afterward. Any suggestions?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open photo in own window - no extra space around photo RC ASP .Net 2 11-24-2004 12:57 AM
resizing a photo in microsoft photo Angel thoughts Computer Support 2 08-21-2004 01:01 AM
Re: Corel Photo-Paint vs/ Adobe Photo Shop Bill Hilton Digital Photography 2 09-13-2003 01:36 AM
Re: Corel Photo-Paint vs/ Adobe Photo Shop Robertwgross Digital Photography 0 09-12-2003 08:25 PM
Adobe Photo Elements vs. Photo Shop Bruce Digital Photography 21 07-28-2003 07:52 AM



Advertisments