RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Photograph Resources, Tips, Tutorials => Topic started by: dawnsh on Monday 11 March 19 10:24 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all
I have no affiliation to
www.colourise.sg
but my OH discovered the site this weekend and we have had a couple of WOW/amazing/happy hours this weekend going through our old black & white photos.
At times the site does go slow but we are so surprised with the outcomes.
Dawn
-
An interesting find, thanks for sharing. I made some tests and was surprised by the results for skin tones, it does a nearly half decent job for base colours. It does retain the original feel of the photo and does not remove noise/grain etc.
What i would say as someone that likes to colour old photos; Is it does not colour backgrounds and misses a fair few spots on the people subjects, especially where shadows and contrast are darker and also fine detail like jewellery. It does not take into consideration lighting within the environment. It does however deal quite well with the hair colouring, but wouldn't know if someone should be redhead, mousy brown, dark brown etc etc.
It could be a handy tool to kick start the base colours of skin colouring but not much more than that.
I think in the next few years these algorithm based auto colourisation tools will be perfected...
If your photos came out well when playing with them, then that's great and it is indeed amazing to see how some of these BW photos can look with a colour splash ;)
-
I tried it but found the colourings rather dull. Just wondering if this is best on the resources board as it's not for a specific request for restoration/dating :-\
Gadget
-
What surprises me the most is that the link has been posted here where there is a willing band of experienced hand colourists who do this with great attention to detail and really enjoy the hobby. On here, the poster also has the opportunity to chose the colours we use if they wish and also can have extraneous objects removed from their photo. It does have it's uses, but, I don't see the value of it on this forum. I hope we don't lose customers as that could harm the board ::)
Carol
-
I'm sure Carol that people see the greater need for personal skills from all hand colourists, we can get the perfection in all areas of a restore/colour up - where the tool cannot. As i said above it is more a tool that merely does the base colours....I think we are not out of a job just yet :) .
As a colourist and avid tech geek, i think it is relevant but if mods see the need to delete or move the post, I get the reasoning ;D
-
I agree with Gadget and Treetotal, this does not seem to be the right place for this post.
I downloaded a similar programme a couple of years ago and was extremely disappointed in the results and have never used it in any of the colourisations I have done on here. As Treetotal has said, it certainly isn't a substitution for a carefully coloured version like the restorers do on here. We restore the photos first before we even start to think about colours and as Martyn said this programme does not remove noise/ grain etc.
The programme makers admit 'it by no means guarantees that the colourised image is an accurate representation of the actual snapshot' and they go onto say 'it works on some images but not others'
I really think this is the wrong place for the post. I only hope if potential posters try this out, they will realise how good their photos could look if done properly and will post them on here for the experienced colourists to work on them.
Pat
-
I am always in the minority - but do think people are being over sensitive to the posters link which i think is an interesting and relevant link to the process of colourisation. Like i said if mods are going to move the original posters link they will - and save us all from a tool that cant do the job as good as we can anyway :D
-
Hi
The name of the site is RootsCHAT.
We Rootschatters pass advice/assistance/etc to aid
amateur genealogists [ AND SOME PROS ]
accomplish tasks.
Part of that assistance scenario is practical, part advice, some experienced, some still need practice.
Some RC-ers do sterling work converting files, enhancing ( their view/version of ) fotos.The fact that people pass on info regarding new facilities/sites/links to new history resources / etc
is fantastic.
I have recently passed on info re "Zoompast" ( def not my involvement )
Why criticise Dawn and not me?
-
The topic has been relocated.
-
Hi
The name of the site is RootsCHAT.
We Rootschatters pass advice/assistance/etc to aid
amateur genealogists [ AND SOME PROS ]
accomplish tasks.
Part of that assistance scenario is practical, part advice, some experienced, some still need practice.
Some RC-ers do sterling work converting files, enhancing ( their view/version of ) fotos.The fact that people pass on info regarding new facilities/sites/links to new history resources / etc
is fantastic.
I have recently passed on info re "Zoompast" ( def not my involvement )
Why criticise Dawn and not me?
Just to be clear Ray, no-one is criticising Dawn, who is a respected moderator, just questioning the wisdom of the link being posted on the photo board when there is a board for hints and tips on restoring.
Carol
-
I inadvertently posted on the wrong board.
The topic has been relocated.
-
Hi
. . . . . "when there is a board for hints and tips on restoring"
Dawn's post is just that .
Rootschat "restorers" would be no-where without being kept uptodate with other "tools" eg Photoshop
-
Thank you Dawn.
Pat
-
"Just to be clear, = = = =, just questioning the wisdom of the link being posted on the photo board when there is a board for hints and tips on restoring.
The " report to moderator " facility would have accomplished the action of moving the thread.[ QUIETLY ]
One has to question the background reason(s) as to why "you" broadcast it publicly [ and LOUDLY ]
Rootschatters do it coz they can NOT for [ public ] thanks.
Am I incorrect?