Restoring Maria and William

[little meg]

here is a second attempt from me

margaret

[little meg]

Don't know if this will work very well, but here is a slightly different look.
Margaret

[Virgo243]

Hi and thank you to everyone for their help - very much appreciated. You have all performed miracles with my old photo. Sorry for the delay in answering but had big time computer problems.
I have another question to ask about restoring. I have been working my way (when time permits) through the tutorials  on restoring photos and, as suggested, I downloaded "Noiseware" however its only valid for 15 days so I guess I will have to purchase a copy. When I went to the website I was given several choices as well as another program called portraiture. Has anyone tried it? Is it worth buying?
Hope I can eventually get to the standard you talented people are at
Thanks for your help
Cheers
Marilyn

[miagre1]

Hi Marilyn,

I presume you mean the "Imagenomic" product.

It's a good filter. Their "Noiseware Professional"  is better.

The "Ninja" filter is good by the way. (another firm)

Any filter needs to be used with discretion so as not make the "new" image look false. Lots of detail work produce the best restores. 

I use filters/ actions and anything else, but limit their use to when all else fails.   

George

[miagre1]

Had to have another go at this one.   

Probably better for the more artistic to apply their skills while I try to grow a brain   
 
 

[Virgo243]

Thanks Miagre1 (and to everyone else) for your wonderful efforts. You have really brought out the detail in her dress I would not have thought was there. You are truly amazing. It was a tough one to start with but you have done wonders with it. Thank you also for the info on noiseware. I will have a closer look at these to decide which one to buy.
Cheers
Marilyn

[chinakay]

Hi Marilyn, here's another thought about the date of the photo, if you can stand one

The first actual permanent photograph was done in 1826 by Niepce, considered the inventor of photography, but that picture took 8 hours of exposure. The first realistically practical photo, the daguerrotype, was made in 1839. So...as the photo does suggest a rather young-looking woman, it's unlikely to be of a person born in 1800 even if she was the first in line to have her portrait done.

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix

Cheers,
China

[PrueM]

China is right - even if your couple were first in line for a photo, the earliest they would have had one taken (at least commercially) would have been 1839.

Photography was not introduced to Australia until 1841, and even then it was a few years before anyone started to offer the process commercially in any great quantity...daguerreotypes would have been very expensive and few except the quite well-off would have been able to afford one.

In my opinion, the pose and clothes etc. are spot on for the 1860s or 70s.  I have never seen a daguerreotype or even an ambrotype look this casual, nor do they usually show full-length portraits, preferring to focus on the top half of the body.

Cheers
Prue

[jc26red]

one very late one from me, to try and define the style of dress and hair a bit better.
I agree with Pru and  China, I don't think it is any earlier than 1860/70s
jc