Author Topic: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.  (Read 336 times)

Offline CForlow

  • RootsChat Pioneer
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« on: Sunday 02 February 25 13:17 GMT (UK) »
Greetings,

I'm fairly new to this forum. I am unsure when this photo was taken, I believe sometime after 1904, but the sides are heavily torn and there is a large sellotape stain over the women's face due to being stuck in an album for so long.

If anyone could have a go at restoring it I would much appreciate it.  :)

Offline japeflakes

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,470
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #1 on: Monday 03 February 25 08:49 GMT (UK) »
Removed as not good enough:  :-(

Offline cazza59

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,121
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #2 on: Monday 03 February 25 09:25 GMT (UK) »
Removed as can't compete with AI apps.

Caz
Wilkinson - Shropshire;  Jones - Hereford; Mitchell - Brighton; Emery - Brighton; Hall - Brighton Christopher - Dorset; Bussell - Dorset; <br /><br /><br />This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><]

Offline McGroger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,845
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #3 on: Monday 03 February 25 10:22 GMT (UK) »
Welcome to Rootschat, CForlow.
Here's my try. :)
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.


Online loord74

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #4 on: Monday 03 February 25 11:13 GMT (UK) »
MY TRY
Rami

Offline Neale1961

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,073
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #5 on: Monday 03 February 25 22:28 GMT (UK) »
Bravo Peter! A remarkably good, and very sensitive restoration. It stays true to the original, without changing facial features using AI.
Milligan - Jardine – Glencross – Dinwoodie - Brown: (Dumfriesshire & Kirkcudbrightshire)
Clark – Faulds – Cuthbertson – Bryson – Wilson: (Ayrshire & Renfrewshire)
Neale – Cater – Kinder - Harrison: (Warwickshire & Queensland)
Roberts - Spry: (Cornwall, Middlesex & Queensland)
Munster: (Schleswig-Holstein & Queensland) and Plate: (Braunschweig, Neubruck & Queensland & New York)

Offline ~buttons~

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 04 February 25 00:44 GMT (UK) »
Although not a restoration it's a stunning AI interpretation based on the original - well done Rami

Personally, I find that the extra birds, beads, baubles and brooch are unnecessary additions to what is a lovely old family photograph.
Unfortunately, I find the "extras" somewhat of a distraction.

BTW - Shoulders should be pleated, not gathered, to fit with the timeframe of the original photo.

All in all, an interesting rendition

Online loord74

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 04 February 25 14:11 GMT (UK) »
Although not a restoration it's a stunning AI interpretation based on the original - well done Rami

Personally, I find that the extra birds, beads, baubles and brooch are unnecessary additions to what is a lovely old family photograph.
Unfortunately, I find the "extras" somewhat of a distraction.

BTW - Shoulders should be pleated, not gathered, to fit with the timeframe of the original photo.

All in all, an interesting rendition

I appreciate your critical comment, it was not just a superficial use of AI tools, the image was first restored using Photoshop, the decoration on the lady's hat is an inaccurate extraction of the image's contents... Merely improving the image with AI without first restoring it is a kind of nonsense and gives illogical results