Restoration of an 1887 Photo

[Crotale]

No worries Tom. You gave me some great tips and they will not go unused.

 

[HalbertP]

This is so cool. Can it be a batch job?

 

[Tom Mann]

... Can it be a batch job?

I presume you are asking about the restoration process, in general?

If so, I have done hundreds of restorations, and the answer is simple: There are so many different things that can be wrong with an old photograph that I see no way of automating any major parts of a restoration job.

OTOH, if you were referring to trying to batch some other task, you'll have to be explain what you want to do more clearly.

T

 

[Renegade]

I agree with you on your points, and they are excellent point, but I had different marching orders. I also had no access to the original print. The single scan was provided to me. The old guy only had one opportunity to scan the original print for an afternoon, which occurred months before I entered the project.

No matter the case, the original should NEVER be enlarged!!! Do all of your work at the original resolution and save a copy. Then, it can be blown up later for printing and the original won't be affected.

 

[Crotale]

No matter the case, the original should NEVER be enlarged!!! Do all of your work at the original resolution and save a copy. Then, it can be blown up later for printing and the original won't be affected.

Okay, fine, use this as an example of the wrong methodology.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hey, Renegade - See post #13 in this thread. I brought up the very same issue, albeit phrased slightly less emphatically, i.e.,

Don't do that. By up-rez'ing, you didn't accomplish anything. Just scan it at 300 or more dpi right from the start, then down-rez it at the end for various specific, lower-rez uses.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't in control of the scanning part of the job.

T

 

[Renegade]

Hey, Renegade - See post #13 in this thread. I brought up the very same issue, albeit phrased slightly less emphatically, i.e.,



Unfortunately, the OP wasn't in control of the scanning part of the job.

T

I realize that. I was just pointing out that regardless of how small the original, it should not have been up-sized to do the editing. Whatever resolution you're dealing with is as good as it's gonna get. No offense to Crotale, he did a fine job... I'm just saying that the work should have been done in the original resolution and saved as-is... THEN do the up-sizing to a copy of the final.

 

[Crotale]

My thought was that upscaling the image for print after editing, I would see an overly obvious degradation in quality.

What process would allow me to upscale for print after editing, all while maintaining visual integrity when compared to the edited original-size version?

 

[Renegade]

My thought was that upscaling the image for print after editing, I would see an overly obvious degradation in quality.

What process would allow me to upscale for print after editing, all while maintaining visual integrity when compared to the edited original-size version?

Up-scaling at any point in the workflow is going to create degradation, period. The method I am advocating preserves the original and your work. The reason for saving the duplicate copy of the file AFTER your work is so your work isn't permanently degraded.

As for the process, it really depends on what size/resolution your at now, your printing target size, and your printing target device.

If printing digital/inkjet, I'd re-size without resampling to the target size and let the dpi fall where it may. Print a proof and evaluate, it should be fine (unless your original is a thumbnail).

If printing commercial offset, the best you'll be able to get away with is printing the original at 200dpi... possibly as low as 150dpi. That will look better than up-scaling a 150dpi image to 300dpi. So, again, re-size without resampling and see where the dpi falls.

If up-scaling is required, it is best done in small increments with a lil bit of Gaussian Blur/Unsharp Mask/spot re-touching between up-scale steps.

 

[Crotale]

Here was my process in a nutshell, since you obviously have the opinion that I must have simply enlarged the image with no thought into the process.

I created a new template, added in a layer containing the original. I then performed some baseline cleaning to get rid of the more obvious issues as best I could. I made a copy of that project for comparison.

My next step was to enlarge the image. This was not an automated process by any means. I took it slow and easy, starting with an initial upscale of 5% and then using a linear slope down to 3% by the time I had upscaled to over 250% of the original. I deliberately measured, compared and manually corrected as necessary to each upscale step. Throughout this process, the DPI stayed at 150. I also copied the project and downscaled back to the original size along the way to ensure I was maintaining real consistency.

The actual editing of the upscaled image was quite labor intensive on its own, and after all that was done, I imported the project into Lightroom. I made some very slight universal adjustments in Lightroom, as well as adding in a light grain. Exporting the image from Lightroom netted a 240 DPI product, which is a default setting. A minor alteration in sizing gave me the deliverable product.

 

[Renegade]

Here was my process in a nutshell, since you obviously have the opinion that I must have simply enlarged the image with no thought into the process.

I created a new template, added in a layer containing the original. I then performed some baseline cleaning to get rid of the more obvious issues as best I could. I made a copy of that project for comparison.

My next step was to enlarge the image. This was not an automated process by any means. I took it slow and easy, starting with an initial upscale of 5% and then using a linear slope down to 3% by the time I had upscaled to over 250% of the original. I deliberately measured, compared and manually corrected as necessary to each upscale step. Throughout this process, the DPI stayed at 150. I also copied the project and downscaled back to the original size along the way to ensure I was maintaining real consistency.

The actual editing of the upscaled image was quite labor intensive on its own, and after all that was done, I imported the project into Lightroom. I made some very slight universal adjustments in Lightroom, as well as adding in a light grain. Exporting the image from Lightroom netted a 240 DPI product, which is a default setting. A minor alteration in sizing gave me the deliverable product.

Sorry man, not trying to knock you. I was basing my opinion from your statement in post #8. Sounds like you took appropriate measures, tho.

I was just throwing out there to the community that that kind of enlargement is usually a big no-no. I deal with a lot of offset commercial printing files, so I see this all the time. Offset isn't as forgiving as digital or inkjet, the printing dots accentuate the resolution loss.