Author Topic: For photo restorers ...  (Read 2563 times)

Offline Mike Morrell (NL)

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Netherlands
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #9 on: Friday 02 June 17 18:23 BST (UK) »
Hi Andy, a couple of restorers gave me exactly the same advice and they were right too!

But in a previous life, I moderated forums like Rootschat that helped members learn from each other. Sometimes through members sharing something new that they've picked up, sometimes by asking for - and getting - advice and sometimes just by 'comparing notes'. This was the idea when I started this topic. Yes you learn the most through just practicing. But sometimes a nudge in the right direction from someone else can help.

On the 'blindness' scale, I'd rate your visibility highly! ;)

Mike
...
 As a young muso, I once asked a visiting musician how he had done a certain riff during his show, his one word answer was, "Practice"........ at the time, I thought him an arrogant chuff, but of course he was absolutely right ;D
Photo restorers may re-use and improve on my posted versions. Acknowledgement appreciated.

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.


Offline Handypandy

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,374
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #10 on: Friday 02 June 17 19:17 BST (UK) »
Don't get me wrong, if folk get involved I think its a good idea. I wouldn't dream of offering advice unless it was asked for though as I would probably get, and deserve, a swift M.Y.O.B.  ;D

As the man said... we don't do requests unless we're asked ;)

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.


Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,898
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #11 on: Friday 02 June 17 21:08 BST (UK) »
Forgive me for not adding to this conversation as half the time I don't know what you are talking about. I have a very basic Photoshop programme with no fancy tools. I basically use the clone tool, remove noise, remove dust and scratches and that's about it. In some ways it would be easier to use all your smoothing, healing tools. It wouldn't take as long.
I do have Gimp but prefer my old faithful. That is why my restores will never be up to your standards, but I am too old to start learning a new programme now and will continue to plod along as I am doing.
Bownass - Lancashire & Westmorland
Hoggarth - Lancashire & Westmorland
Jackson- Lancaster
Waller - Dent, Yorkshire dales
Omerod - Lancashire
Redburn - Lancashire
Evans - Hereford

RESTORERS please do not use my restores without my permission THANK YOU

Offline McGroger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,438
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #12 on: Friday 02 June 17 22:09 BST (UK) »
Interesting topic, Mike.

Iím in two - no, several - minds. On the one hand, as a learner Iíd like to see a bit more explanation by restorers as to how they achieve certain results on difficult/unusual jobs; and Iíd like to see this attached to the work itself so we that can see what weíre talking about. On the other hand - as you say - different people work differently. Some people like to discuss their work, others donít wish to do so or feel uncomfortable doing so. And on the third hand, if we went too far in discussing stuff - attached to a contributorís post - we might scare off potential new posts - a bit like surgeons discussing the details of the cuts in the presence of the patient.

Actually, I think what you have been doing occasionally is great - brief descriptions of your methods/problems with some restores.

Anyway, a few thoughts:

Last night (Australian time) I finally finished a restore (the Portuguese soldier) on my third attempt, after two false starts and after giving up but then starting again a few days later.

What was different the third time is a bit of a story; Iíll try to keep it brief.

Backing up a step, another job I spent a lot of time on recently was the wedding one with all the stripes.  While doing it I read briefly about Fourier Transforms for removing lines, and dafydd said that theyíd used it on that photo, and you (Mike) later said you were trying it out. I started looking in earnest for one for Macs. I found two sources. But one of those - for plugins (ďjoofaĒ) - was no longer providing them. I ended up downloading a copy of the other, a stand alone program called ImageJ. I tried this out on the photo in question and it did work to some extent but not really well enough for me to spend a lot more time on it to clean up the remainder. I presume that because the original photo had fading as well as lines that were variable - those two things in conjunction - the FFT processing couldnít clean up all the lines. (I think I followed the instructions properly.)

Iíd also read somewhere that GIMP had a Destripe filter which I thought Iíd like to try out if ImageJ didnít do the job. (And I do like comparing the features of different programs to decide which one is best for me - e.g. family tree programs! And when theyíre freeÖ SWMBO doesnít object.) So I downloaded it and after working out how to drive it, I tried it out on the photo. No good. Much poorer results than the FFT. I suspect it may be good on straightforward stripes.

But now I had GIMP. So I gave it a go on the Portuguese photo. And I started getting better results. Not because GIMP is better than PSE, but because, completely new to GIMP, I had to go very slowly indeed. GIMP is different. It has a clunkier interface than Photoshop Elements, but - to a newbie anyway - it has more subtlety (is that the right word?) in some of its tools. (Disclaimer: Iím so new to both programs I probably donít know which tools each one has compared with the other - I just havenít found/used them yet. They definitely operate differently, anyway.)

I didnít complete the restore solely using GIMP. I kept swapping between the two programs. I could do some things more easily/better in one, some things in the other. I wonít detail the pros and cons of each here because Iím being longwinded enough already and because with my limited experience - 2 months with PSE and one week with GIMP - whatever I said now would most likely turn out to be complete rubbish. Maybe Iíll do a comparison when Iíve had (a lot) more experience.

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.

Offline Mike Morrell (NL)

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Netherlands
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 03 June 17 09:52 BST (UK) »
You do great work with your 'old faithful', Pat! As far as I know, the main Photoshop features, filters etc are in pretty much all older versions. I started this thread (as an experiment) just as place where restorers can ask questions to other restorers, share anything new they've come across or tried out, etc. Maybe there's no interest in this. In any case, contributing is entirely optional.

Mike

Forgive me for not adding to this conversation as half the time I don't know what you are talking about. I have a very basic Photoshop programme with no fancy tools. I basically use the clone tool, remove noise, remove dust and scratches and that's about it. In some ways it would be easier to use all your smoothing, healing tools. It wouldn't take as long.
I do have Gimp but prefer my old faithful. That is why my restores will never be up to your standards, but I am too old to start learning a new programme now and will continue to plod along as I am doing.
Photo restorers may re-use and improve on my posted versions. Acknowledgement appreciated.

Offline Mike Morrell (NL)

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Netherlands
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #14 on: Saturday 03 June 17 10:28 BST (UK) »
Hi Peter,

As a newbie Iím curious as to how some restorers achieve specific results too. The striped wedding photo is a cases in point. Ideally, (optional) Q&A between restorers would be attached or linked to the photo topic. But as you say, it doesn't seem right to clog up the photo topic with Q&A between restorers that are meaningless to the Original Poster. That's why I thought that a separate topic (or sub-forum?) for restorers might be useful. Just somewhere where restorers can post Q&A, share tips, etc. 'off-line' from specific photo topics.

I have no idea how much interest there is in sharing tips & techniques. It's fine by me if people donít wish to do so or feel uncomfortable doing so. I also understand that people who have been doing restoration for many years have no interest in discussing techniques (yet again!).

Your point about using GIMP and Photoshop together  - each with specific strengths -is interesting. I'd never thought of that!  I don't know GIMP at all but I'll download a copy to find out more. I can imagine that there are plug-ins available for GIMP that aren't for Photoshop. Well worth finding out more!

Cheers,

Mike

Interesting topic, Mike.

Iím in two - no, several - minds. On the one hand, as a learner Iíd like to see a bit more explanation by restorers as to how they achieve certain results on difficult/unusual jobs; and Iíd like to see this attached to the work itself so we that can see what weíre talking about. On the other hand - as you say - different people work differently. Some people like to discuss their work, others donít wish to do so or feel uncomfortable doing so. And on the third hand, if we went too far in discussing stuff - attached to a contributorís post - we might scare off potential new posts - a bit like surgeons discussing the details of the cuts in the presence of the patient.

Actually, I think what you have been doing occasionally is great - brief descriptions of your methods/problems with some restores.

....

GIMP is different. It has a clunkier interface than Photoshop Elements, but - to a newbie anyway - it has more subtlety (is that the right word?) in some of its tools. (Disclaimer: Iím so new to both programs I probably donít know which tools each one has compared with the other - I just havenít found/used them yet. They definitely operate differently, anyway.)

I didnít complete the restore solely using GIMP. I kept swapping between the two programs. I could do some things more easily/better in one, some things in the other. I wonít detail the pros and cons of each here because Iím being longwinded enough already and because with my limited experience - 2 months with PSE and one week with GIMP - whatever I said now would most likely turn out to be complete rubbish. Maybe Iíll do a comparison when Iíve had (a lot) more experience.

Cheers, Peter.
Photo restorers may re-use and improve on my posted versions. Acknowledgement appreciated.

Offline stevew101

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,388
  • Stotfold Boy
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #15 on: Saturday 03 June 17 10:31 BST (UK) »
You do great work with your 'old faithful', Pat! As far as I know, the main Photoshop features, filters etc are in pretty much all older versions. I started this thread (as an experiment) just as place where restorers can ask questions to other restorers, share anything new they've come across or tried out, etc. Maybe there's no interest in this. In any case, contributing is entirely optional.

Mike

Forgive me for not adding to this conversation as half the time I don't know what you are talking about. I have a very basic Photoshop programme with no fancy tools. I basically use the clone tool, remove noise, remove dust and scratches and that's about it. In some ways it would be easier to use all your smoothing, healing tools. It wouldn't take as long.
I do have Gimp but prefer my old faithful. That is why my restores will never be up to your standards, but I am too old to start learning a new programme now and will continue to plod along as I am doing.
Like you Pat, I am also using quite old software as my main source - Paint Shop Pro 8 and from time to time I resort to Gimp.  I find that you get to know your choice of software and then it becomes a long steep learning curve to make a change.  By the way, you achieve some lovely results

I think the idea of exchanging tips is great, as we are always learning with photo manipulation software, but I wonder how many of us are using different software?

Steve
**Please ask if you wish to modify my restores**    HFD Turner-Warwick-Gentle-Game-Harris-Howard-Clements-Gould-James-Lee-Cooper-Castle-Pallet-Hide-Barns-Watts-Swain-Shatbolt-Bonfield-Gundrill-Izard-Impy-Ellis-Carter-Honour BFD Gentle-Tansley-Bly-Rowney-Wilshire-Fisher-Tingay-Ivory-Clark SFK Jay-Norman-Ship ESX Jay-Mann-Gould-Fletcher MIDDX Roberts-Longe AUSTRALIA - Henry Gentle 1795-1865

Offline jc26red

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,735
  • Census information Crown Copyright.
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #16 on: Saturday 03 June 17 11:08 BST (UK) »
Just to amplify on what I said above, Dust & Scratches filter can be useful, in less important areas of an image, when the scratches are darker (or lighter) than the wanted parts of the print. But I must agree with Handypandy, the clone and healing brushes do the bulk of the work. Also, as a musician, I can echo the importance of practice!

dafydd46.

I haven't done any restores for ages  (probably years :-\) but agree with dafydd46, although some restorers use filters for just about everything, many of the old school are hands on and prefer the manual approach.  Facial reconstruction or badly damaged photos, for example, can take hours to repair when filters are not up to the job. And don't forget to master layers. FFT just takes practice, follow the online tutorials.

When I was a newby at restoring, I used to try to reproduce certain styles that the experienced restorers used until I was satsified with my work. Quite often I didn't even posting my results.

I used ps essentials 9, and still do. I need to ask.. what is the "content aware" filter? When was, that introduced and which application? Is it in the full photoshop app?  I now have access to the latest all singing all dancing Adobe suite, thanks to my youngest daughter, who is a graphic designer, adding me as a licensed user unfortunately she installed it on the mac and I'm not a mac fan.

Please acknowledge when a restorer works on your photos, it can take hours for them to work their magic

Please scan at 300dpi minimum to help save the restorers eyesight.

Offline Handypandy

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,374
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: For photo restorers ...
« Reply #17 on: Saturday 03 June 17 11:08 BST (UK) »
To answer Mikes query on what methods folk used on the striped wedding pic...

In my case, I tried various routes and even posted two attempts. It was a particularly tough one. In the end, I resorted to cloning and healing with the odd bit of blur. Yes its was a long and drawn out process and in retrospect, had I spent even longer on it, I may have done a bit better. However, at only 25% of the way through it, I was already losing the will to live but had passed the point of no return, so carried on.
As for a separate sub forum, well of course there already is one and we probably should use it more. I would definitely be up for more interaction, we just need to be as pro-active as Mike and get posting.

Edit to add: It might be helpful if, in the above mentioned sub forum, the mods would allow posting examples which might not necessarily be in the general remit of the site.

Also... it would be easy enough, rather than hijack threads, to post a link in a restore thread to a "Restorers comments thread" in the sub forum.....am I making sense??? ???