Removing embossing pattern from old photo scan?

mrlassiter · April 20, 2010

How would one approach removing a paper(?) pattern from an old photo? The following photo was taken of me at age 2, by a photographer shooting my older sister's class. The original 8x10 disappeared and the scan was from a smaller wallet size. I can repair the spots, contrast, etc, but I have no idea if it can be done or how to go about doing anything about the pattern. Anyone have any ideas?

David@2.jpg.jpg

Thanks in advance,

-mrlassiter

Art Scott · April 20, 2010

Do u still have the wallet pic??? If so do not use the scan.....instead re-photograph the wallet .....do an extreme close up so that the wallet nearly fills the frame....You may have to do this a few times but also shoot it at the largest F-stop possible (like f2.8 or 1.4...what ever you lens will do).......even if all you have is a f4 lens then shoot it a f 4.......I am using my Konica Minolta A2 (8mp) to re-shoot a lot of my older photos that I can't find the negs or slides for........I also use a copy stand .....paid $50 for a brand new but rather old stand the original price tag had $150 on it and was very yellowed..........

BinaryFx · April 20, 2010

There are a few Photoshop native tricks that I will try later on today when I have more time...until then, as this is a repeating pattern:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=64775

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

mrlassiter · April 20, 2010

Art Scott wrote:

Do u still have the wallet pic??? If so do not use the scan.....instead re-photograph the wallet .....do an extreme close up so that the wallet nearly fills the frame....You may have to do this a few times but also shoot it at the largest F-stop possible (like f2.8 or 1.4...what ever you lens will do).......even if all you have is a f4 lens then shoot it a f 4.......I am using my Konica Minolta A2 (8mp) to re-shoot a lot of my older photos that I can't find the negs or slides for........I also use a copy stand .....paid $50 for a brand new but rather old stand the original price tag had $150 on it and was very yellowed..........

Wow!, Thanks for such a quick response. I hadn't even considered that method. Unfortunately, My mother has the wallet halfway across the country, she scanned it. I am heading her way in a few weeks, though, so I will try that approach. I will need to invest in a copy stand, but I do have a 50 1.8, a 17-50 2.8, and I believe eithe of them would work well.
We have many old family photos, that most of the clan never knew existed and a few of us are in the process of creating a repository of them for the scattered masses of relatives. Aint the internet great? Thanks again Art, I will keep you posted with the progress as soon as I get my grubbies on the original.

-mrlassiter

www.peachthorn.com
www.peachthorn.com/press

Art Scott · April 20, 2010

I do not recommend using 50mm lenses as i utterly do not like them......

BUUUUUT .....this is the time for the 1.8 aperture......that should take care of the problem real fine......is you can get some double sticky - removable clear tape and tape the pic to a wall...use a level and small square......and then using a tripod rais and lower the camera until the image is centered as close as possible and take a whole bunch of pix.......I use studio strobes with brolly boxes for diffusers.....HOWEVER..... I do not use the flash...only the modeling light at ISO 80......
I am a great big believer in LOW ISO.:D

rofl

Good Luck

mrlassiter · April 20, 2010

BinaryFx wrote:

There are a few Photoshop native tricks that I will try later on today when I have more time...until then, as this is a repeating pattern:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=64775

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

Stephen,
Thanks so much, that is exactly what I was looking for, for this image, but as Art stated perhaps the better method would be to photo the image using a copy stand and eliminating the problem in the first place. I think I would rather do that.
I did try the plugins you directed me to, but maybe I am just a dork as I could get nothing more than a greenish noise field with the crosses, and after brushing out the crosses and running the inverse, it only comes up a black screen. Adjusting opacity didn't help, something I am missing here. I need to play around with the filter set some more,...perhaps when my twins and three year old aren't trying to 'help' me so much...

Art,
I agree, and my 50 1.8 gets little use anymore, but like you said this is onetime I can see it being the tool for the job. Thanks again for the suggestion. And since I'll be taking the RV I have plenty of room to throw a copy stand AND tripod in so I may use both methods. Heck I may even put some fo the younger kids to work on an assembly line and rephoto all the pix that can be scrounged up. We have some back to the early part of the century (the 1900's not the 2000's.)

-mrlassiter

www.peachthorn.com
www.peachthorn.com/press

BinaryFx · April 20, 2010

mrlassiter wrote:

Stephen,
Thanks so much, that is exactly what I was looking for, for this image, but as Art stated perhaps the better method would be to photo the image using a copy stand and eliminating the problem in the first place. I think I would rather do that.

Even though this is the post processing forum, I agree that it all starts with the original capture - so one is better to remove the problem at capture so that a fix in post is not necessary!

I am new to DSLR photography, however I seem to recall many recommending using polarising filters on the lights and or camera when doing copy work, as well as using two lights from opposite directions at 45° to the original. (? anyone ?)

I did try the plugins you directed me to, but maybe I am just a dork as I could get nothing more than a greenish noise field with the crosses, and after brushing out the crosses and running the inverse, it only comes up a black screen. Adjusting opacity didn't help, something I am missing here. I need to play around with the filter set some more,...perhaps when my twins and three year old aren't trying to 'help' me so much...

Sounds like operator error, Fourier processing is not what most of us are used to and it is very unintuitive to say the least! It is worth exploring the various links and reading what has been said by those more experienced...

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

Art Scott · April 21, 2010

BinaryFx wrote:

I am new to DSLR photography, however I seem to recall many recommending using polarising filters on the lights and or camera when doing copy work, as well as using two lights from opposite directions at 45° to the original. (? anyone ?)
Stephen Marsh

Even tho I use 2 lights they may or maynot be a 45* to the photo being copied or the camera.......I move2 thm around a bit and watch the light on the photo.....then I Very gently push my RF shutter remote to keep all vibes as low as possible....

BinaryFx · April 21, 2010

Art Scott wrote:

Even tho I use 2 lights they may or maynot be a 45* to the photo being copied or the camera.......I move2 thm around a bit and watch the light on the photo.....then I Very gently push my RF shutter remote to keep all vibes as low as possible....

Thanks Art, yes, I see where you are coming from, for textured originals, the angle may vary from the textbook position.

How about the polarizing filters for the lights (? camera ?), overkill or a good addition (not sure if it depends on the original being captured)?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=copy+stand+polarizing+lights

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

mrlassiter · April 21, 2010

figured it out... resolution too high.
Stephen, thanks again.
For those who may have a similar issue-
It seems that the FFT plug-in had problems with my 2400 ppi file (the original photo was only 1.218 inches by 1.733 inches,) so I re-sized it to 8 by 12 at 300 ppi and all worked as outlined. I did a quick job of editting it, but am not at all unhappy with the results. I still intend to photograph the original, but the result from the FFT plug-in is acceptable for now.

David@2Fixed22.jpg

Thanks again,

-mrlassiter

www.peachthorn.com
www.peachthorn.com/press

Removing embossing pattern from old photo scan?

Comments