Author Topic: Photo Restoration  (Read 243 times)

Offline hiyamarra

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Photo Restoration
« on: Wednesday 04 October 17 17:28 BST (UK) »
Hi
A good friend has just found this image of her G Grandmother when tidying her attic. Apparently there is a date on the back 1898. Is it at all possible to restore/improve this in any way
Many thanks in advance
Holmes, Keenan, McKenzie, Knowles, Berry.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online Wiggy

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,216
  • coloured by Gadget
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Restoration
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 04 October 17 21:24 BST (UK) »
Hi
 Is it at all possible to restore/improve this in any way


Given the terrible state of the photo and the really poor scan, (72 dpi -  needs to be 300+ and even then . . . . . .) it seems highly unlikely.    :-\

To work on something so very badly damaged would require a really really good scan.    All the woman's features have been lost so any reconstruction would just be made up.    :(

Not trying to be rude . . . just saying it how it is!   :)

Cheers,

Wiggy       
Gaunt, Ransom, McNally, Stanfield, Kimberley. (Tasmania)
Brown, Johnstone, Eskdale, Brand  (Dumfriess,  Scotland)
Booth, Bruerton, Deakin, Wilkes, Kimberley
(Warwicks, Staffords)
Gaunt (Yorks)
Percy, Dunning, Hyne, Grigg, Farley (Devon, UK)
Duncan (Fife, Devon), Hugh, Blee (Cornwall)
Green, Mansfield, (Herts)
Cavenaugh, Ransom (Middlesex)
 

 Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online Handypandy

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,066
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Restoration
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 04 October 17 21:33 BST (UK) »
I agree with Wiggy, I wouldn't hold my hopes out even with a hi-res scan. I've blurred it out a little but anything else is definitely above my payscale.

Offline hiyamarra

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Restoration
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 04 October 17 22:45 BST (UK) »
Thanks Wiggy and Handypandy, at least I know what can and can not be done
Holmes, Keenan, McKenzie, Knowles, Berry.

Offline Mike Morrell

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Restoration
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 04 October 17 23:12 BST (UK) »
Yes, I think the photo be improved (despite the damage). As Wiggy and HandyPandy have said, you'd get the best results with a new scan with your scanner set to the highest resolution: 300 or 600 dpi (or just 'best quality').

I don't know the exact type of physical damage from this scan but it looks like there are might be raised and/or depressed cracks and spots on the surface of the photo. When scanning photos with this type of surface damage, the 'scanner light' passing over the photo reflects more strongly on one side of each raised crack/spot so that it appears whiter in the scanned photo. Depressions come out slightly darker.

What would help us in restoring/repairing the photo is if you make not just 1 higher resolution scan but 2, rotating the photo on the scanner plate 180% between each scan. You can attach these to multiple posts if both together are too big to attach to one post. Restorers can then 'superimpose' these 2 scans on each other to reduce the 'white crack/spot damage'. There's still a lot of work to be done but the better the original photo (higher resolution, 2 scans to work with) the better the results will be.

If you're interested, you can see a 2-minute video about why 2 scans are useful at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy7NALaYmQ4

Mike

Offline hiyamarra

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Restoration
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 04 October 17 23:22 BST (UK) »
Many thanks for that, i'll get back to you
Holmes, Keenan, McKenzie, Knowles, Berry.

Online McGroger

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Restoration
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 04 October 17 23:48 BST (UK) »
Great advice, Mike; certainly looks as though it could be part of the problem. Cheers, Peter.
Convicts: COSIER (1791); LEADBEATER (1791); SINGLETON (& PARKINSON) (1792); STROUD (1793); BARNES (aka SYDNEY) (1800); DAVIS (1804); CLARK (1806); TYLER (1810); COWEN (1818); ADAMS[ON] (1821); SMITH (1827); WHYBURN (1827); HARBORNE (1828).
Commoners: DOUGAN (1844); FORD (1849); JOHNSTON (1850); BEATTIE (& LONG) (1856); BRICKLEY (1883).
Outlaws: MCGREGOR (1883) & ass. clans, Glasgow, Glenquaich, Glenalmond and Glengyle.