What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

$100 - Extensive enlargement & restoration of photograph of artwork


D

darlingm

Member
Messages
17
Likes
2
Work Needed: Extensive Enlargement & Restoration
Budget: $100
Full Description of Work: <see end of post>
Deadline: Hoping within a few days


I reproduce artwork and print photographs for clients who sell their work at fairs and in galleries. I do a fair amount retouching and restoration work, but it's not my primary focus.


One of my artist clients needs a 3.8Megapixel (1368x2784px) photograph of a piece of artwork printed at 18" x 36" using 360ppi on canvas - so effectively 84Megapixel (12960x6480px).


I typically have an original painting that I can create a 200Megapixel (or more, if a larger original) scan of. The original is long gone, so all we have to go off is the photograph.


We understand the photograph is noisy, out of focus, only a JPEG not TIFF or RAW, etc. Luckily, it's being printed on canvas which helps somewhat with low image quality. We are printing it at this size, even if we can't get better than what I did. So, the standard here is to do noticeably better than I did. If it's noticeably better, we aren't going to say it's still not good enough and we're scrapping the project. We understand a photograph can't be broguht to the quality level of a scan.


A lot of the work you guys do amazes me, so I can't wait to see what you come up with!

Through much trial and error, the result I'm most happy with used this process:
* Converted the original 8-bit sRGB photograph into a smart object. (I love smart objects and non-destructive edits.)
* Converted the document into a 16-bit ProPhoto RGB file. (This of course doesn't gain anything by itself, but gives us the headroom as we work.)
* Ran Topaz DeNoise 5.01 on the Smart Object
* Saved this non-destructive document, along with a flattened TIFF that I ran through PhotoZoom Pro (like Perfect Resize, but I like it's results a bit better) with some sharpening and noise (film grain) addition in PhotoZoom Pro to enlarge it up to 18x36 at 360ppi.
* Took the TIFF file PhotoZoom Pro created, and converted it to a smart object.
* In a new layer, created some touch-up spots using clone stamp/healing brush/spot healing brush.
* Converted the existing smart object along with the touch-up layer into a smart object.
* Ran smart sharpen.
* Ran Topaz DeNoise using low settings (again).
* Performed global brightness adjustments using levels and curves.
* Performed local brightness adjustments using levels and curves, with gradient layer masks. (Right half seems underexposed and top left corner seems overexposed to me. Artist agrees.)
* Performed color correction using Hue/Saturation adjustment layers.
* Converted all of that into a smart object
* Ran Topaz DeNoise using low settings (yet again).
* Used Shadows/Highlights adjustment (as you probably know, doesn't exist as an adjustment layer - but works perfectly as a smart filter on a smart object.)


Full Description of Work:
* Enlarge & restore it noticeably than I did to 18x36 @ 360ppi.
* Immediately convert original into 16-bit ProPhotoRGB, stay in it the whole time.
* I adjust color and brightness quite well, so I am perfectly happy if you just focus on getting the detail better - and skip the color and brightness adjustments. No need to rotate or crop, either. (Of course, if you want to dive into all of these things, that's fine too!) I can handle printing adjustments, so no need for you to work with my ICC profile or soft proof.
* We'd like a non-destructively edited PSD/PSB file so we can tinker with it. (Or files, if you have to flatten mid process to send through a program that doesn't handle layers or smart objects.) Sending via your preferred password protected upload site is fine. Feel free to post zoomed in sample on this thread - but no posting the full size version publicly! We can't have people grabbing your work and making unauthorized copies of her work.
* Use whatever addons or techniques you'd like to use. (Doesn't have to be Topaz/PhotoZoom Pro.)
* Must keep the work confidential. Original artwork is copyrighted by artist. (By the way, if you need to verify with the artist that she'd given permission for this work to be done, that's fine - I can put you in contact with her.)


Original Photograph Download Link: http://www.westlandprintworks.com/img/late-summer-lunch.jpg


Zoomed In Area of Original Photograph - This is a 1.8" x 2" section (of the full print size)

EDIT: this zoomed area is from around 16.75" to 18.75 horizontally, and from around 3.75" to 5.5" vertically.

late-summer-lunch-zoom-original.jpg



Zoomed In Area of Photograph With My Restoration Work - This is a 1.8" x 2" section (of the full print size)

late-summer-lunch-zoom-my-restoration.jpg
 
Last edited:
I want to work on this. I downloaded it. Maybe someone else will also. If you like what I do fine, if you don't that's fine too.
 
Since this has turned into a contest, I withdraw. I was uploading the file when you guys showed up. NP

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
 
ALB68 said:
Since this has turned into a contest, I withdraw. I was uploading the file when you guys showed up. NP

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Of course it's a contest man, that's how it works. Everybody uploads their version and the OP pick the one they like best.
It's your choice not to do it, but if you don't put up a sample of what you did, how are you ever going to know if the OP liked it or not?
 
I have a couple of questions for the OP:

1. Since the input image is in sRGB, any colors beyond it's limited gamut that are induced by intentional color manipulations in ProPhoto are complete guesswork unless the artist remembers the original very well, or has samples of the paints they used.

Even worse, in ProPhoto, it's fairly easy to induce out-of-gamut, even unphysical colors, especially if the retoucher is not using a wide gamut display. Hence, may I ask, why such a strong requirement for ProPhoto?

2. 360 ppi for an image that is to be printed quite large and on canvas seems overkill. May I ask why you are not simply letting your printer's RIP up-rez the image from something more modest like 180 or 200 ppi?

3. I agree completely that the illumination is quite uneven (in the way suggested by the OP), and needs to be fixed (see attached example of a partial evening out). This sounds easy, but doing so without inducing unintentional saturation and hue shifts is non-trivial. You may want to encourage some healthy competition on this topic.

Sincerely,

Tom M


late-summer-lunch-tjm01_acr-ps02b_cropped-01_orig_uneven_illumination.jpg

late-summer-lunch-tjm01_acr-ps02b_cropped-02_partially_evened_illumination2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Excuse me please. I am just an ignorant old man. I have only been a member here for 6 months and I reckon I didn't pay attention because I have only observed a job being posted in this forum and then the client deciding on someone to do it via PM etc. I had communicated with the OP and had spent my time on it, but no matter, my time is free I guess or it is now anyhow. I just didn't realize this was the way it worked. Thanks
Fatboy73 said:
Of course it's a contest man, that's how it works. Everybody uploads their version and the OP pick the one they like best.
It's your choice not to do it, but if you don't put up a sample of what you did, how are you ever going to know if the OP liked it or not?
Click to expand...
 
Fatboy73 - Thanks. Possibly. I'll try printing this section later today with some of the others.

ALB68 - Sorry to see your frustration. I'm relatively new here as well, but it's looked to me like most work in the freelance work section gets quite a few submissions, and the poster picks which one they want to go with. I'd still love to see what you came up with.

sprucemagoo1 - Hoping you can send another section sample. Your sample is about 15.75" - 24" horizontally, and around 7.25" to 11.25" vertically. At 360ppi, an full resolution section of this area would be approximately 2970x1440 pixels. The sample is only 700x349 pixels, so I can't see the level of detail that I'm trying to see. It would probably be easiest for me to compare if you took the section around 16.75" to 18.75 horizontally, and from around 3.75" to 5.5" vertically - the section my samples are from. That's such a small area, it is only 751x659 pixels. If you wanted, a full resolution section also of the area you provided is certainly great too!
 
Good questions!

Tom Mann said:
1. Since the input image is in sRGB, any colors beyond it's limited gamut that are induced by intentional color manipulations in ProPhoto are complete guesswork unless the artist remembers the original very well, or has samples of the paints they used.

Even worse, in ProPhoto, it's fairly easy to induce out-of-gamut, even unphysical colors, especially if the retoucher is not using a wide gamut display. Hence, may I ask, why such a strong requirement for ProPhoto?
Click to expand...

I'm using the Epson Stylus Pro 9900, and printing on glossy canvas. This combination is able to print many colors that can't be defined using the sRGB colorspace, and even some colors that can't be defined using the AdobeRGB colorspace.

You're absolutely right, that the color manipulation requires guesswork. I can understand your point of view. The original photograph isn't color accurate, so nothing we do is going to make it color accurate. Some color manipulation should happen to make the artist and end client thrilled with the print, while of course still trying to represent something faithful to the original painting. This artist uses extremely bold and saturated oil paints, and every one of her paintings extends well beyond the sRGB colorspace, and even beyond the AdobeRGB colorspace. I figure it's better to make the print "feel" like hers rather than being constricted. I work with the artist on the colors, and although she remembers the original quite well, it's been shown people can't have an accurate memory of colors to a fine degree, so it is certainly guesswork in the end.

In the ways you mention, you can make mistakes in ProPhotoRGB, and having a wide gamut monitor is a big plus.

Hence, how I'm primarily looking for someone to get the quality of the uprezzing noticeably better than I did, saying if you want to work on color and brightness that's fine, but winding up with a non-destructively edited file so if mistakes are made there, I can correct it.

Tom Mann said:
2. 360 ppi for an image that is to be printed quite large and on canvas seems overkill. May I ask why you are not simply letting your printer's RIP up-rez the image from something more modest like 180 or 200 ppi?
Click to expand...

I'm using the Epson Stylus Pro 9900. Its print heads can only process information at 360 or 720 ppi. (It can only do 720 ppi on materials that can support the additional detail like high end paper. Canvas remains at 360 ppi due to its texture.) (As a side note, HP and Canon print heads process at 300 or 600 ppi.) If you print a document from any application that isn't at 360 or 720 ppi, somewhere in the pipeline automatic up-rezzing happens, as you mention. The automatic up-rezzing method can't be controlled, and because it needs to process fast, inherently won't do as good of a job up-rezzing as software specially designed for that. Photoshop/Lightroom will do better than the spot in the driver pipeline where it happens, and programs like Perfect Resize (formerly Genuine Fractals) or PhotoZoom Pro - and many others - will do an even better job than Photoshop/Lightroom. So, although many people print documents at lower ppi, you get the best results if you control this process rather than the driver pipeline. Additionally, if you match your document to the ppi the print heads are going to use for the media type you're using, you have full control over performing output sharpening at the pixel level the printer will transform into many dots, which gives you a better result than if you're doing sharpening when there's going to be up-rezing later on.

Tom Mann said:
3. I agree completely that the illumination is quite uneven (in the way suggested by the OP), and needs to be fixed (see attached example of a partial evening out). This sounds easy, but doing so without inducing unintentional saturation and hue shifts is non-trivial. You may want to encourage some healthy competition on this topic.
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely tricky!
 
P.S. Tom Mann - Can't wait to see a section of your enlargement work at full pixel size! If possible, would be easiest for me to see the section I described in the O/P.
 
darlingm said:
sprucemagoo1 - Hoping you can send another section sample. Your sample is about 15.75" - 24" horizontally, and around 7.25" to 11.25" vertically. At 360ppi, an full resolution section of this area would be approximately 2970x1440 pixels. The sample is only 700x349 pixels, so I can't see the level of detail that I'm trying to see. It would probably be easiest for me to compare if you took the section around 16.75" to 18.75 horizontally, and from around 3.75" to 5.5" vertically - the section my samples are from. That's such a small area, it is only 751x659 pixels. If you wanted, a full resolution section also of the area you provided is certainly great too!
Click to expand...

My sample is in total 3000x3000 pixels. You have to left click the image and open in a new tab so it will show full resolution.
 
Hi Darlingm -

Thank you for the very thorough answers to my questions. Your answers, especially about saturated colors, pretty much confirmed what I suspected (especially after I looked at the individual histograms of your image), and I completely understand your approach of trying to approximate the feel of the original art based on what you do have.

That being said, I've decided not to bid on this job, mostly because I don't think I can do much better than what you have done and how good some of the early submissions look.

BTW, I am impressed by your obvious dedication to the highest quality product.

When the job is done, I know that many of us would love to see a small area of the winning version, so if it's possible, pls. post a crop of the same area shown in your original posting.

Best regards,

Tom M
 
Back
Top