Help do a good deed, restore a Cecil Stoner photo

rutt · October 19, 2005

Take a look at this thread. [size=+1]Don't start correcting the shots posted there until you read the rest of this message.[/size]

The best originals of these shots are in this gallery.

If you want to help, here's what to do.

Choose a shot that nobody has already spoken for. I'll try to keep a list of open and completed shots by editing this post and also in the gallery itself to help us avoid duplicating effort.
Post a message to this thread to let everyone know that you intend to work on the shot. That way others will know and won't duplicate your attempt.
When you are done, post again, this time with a link to your corrected version.

At this point all the shots have been at least claimed and we have improved version of many. I'll try to keep the list here up to date in case someone thinks s/he can improve one that's already been done.

Here are the shots already completed or in process:

scan0009 - Done by smittymike19, but work was done with low res starting point, being redone by behr655
scan0001 - In process by Nee7x7
scan0031 - In process by Nee7x7
scan0070 - In process by Nee7x7
scan00013 -Done by rutt, maybe someone can do better?
scan00032 - In process by celtus
scan0006 - Done by rutt
scan0003 - Done by spockling
scan00072 - Done by rutt
scan00051 - Done by spockling
scan0008 - Done by rutt
scan00033 - Done by Laurie
scan00062 - In process by Greaper

It's much better to work on a shot which hasn't been done yet than to redo someone else's attempt. If you do take a shot and find you don't know how to fix, let me know and I'll free the shot so someone else can work on it.

OK, let's get this done. Thank you, everyone.

gus · October 19, 2005

Im the last person that should be PS'ing others shots but if you are stuck let me know & im happy to give it a whirl but im not good at it.

Whats the date they are req by rutt ?

Gus

rutt · October 19, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Im the last person that should be PS'ing others shots but if you are stuck let me know & im happy to give it a whirl but im not good at it.

Whats the date they are req by rutt ?

Gus

Saturday. Wait a few hours, Gus. I think there are a lot of people who will do this.

cletus · October 19, 2005

I'll take a crack at scan00032.

rutt · October 19, 2005

I did my best with scan0013. Can't say it's my best result. Maybe someone else can do better? I did two versions, one straightened and cropped and one with only the contrast, noise, and sharpening fixes.

rutt · October 19, 2005

I'm finding these pretty challenging. Restoring these scans is a whole different ball game than making what comes out of digital cameras look the best it can. I did one B&W (with the dog) and the noise issue was very hard. I've done a few color ones and had to break down and use a selection or brush of some sort each time and the noise issue is there as well.

If anyone has any valuable insights, please share.

wholenewlight · October 19, 2005

rutt wrote:

I did my best with scan0013. Can't say it's my best result. Maybe someone else can do better? I did two versions, one straightened and cropped and one with only the contrast, noise, and sharpening fixes.

DavidTO · October 19, 2005

rutt wrote:

I'm finding these pretty challenging. Restoring these scans is a whole different ball game than making what comes out of digital cameras look the best it can. I did one B&W (with the dog) and the noise issue was very hard. I've done a few color ones and had to break down and use a selection or brush of some sort each time and the noise issue is there as well.

If anyone has any valuable insights, please share.

A lot of times with these scans you can get by with the dust/scratch filter because there's already a softness to the image. You can also apply the dust/scratch on a separate layer and then reveal important details through masking.

rutt · October 19, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

A lot of times with these scans you can get by with the dust/scratch filter because there's already a softness to the image. You can also apply the dust/scratch on a separate layer and then reveal important details through masking.

Yeah, I tried it, but it's like death to any sharpness there is in this images, at least the ones I tried. Works better on the A+B channels, but Surface Blur seems to work better there. So I have used the dust/scratch filter, but then need a layer mask to reveal facial detail and the like that was lost.

Laurie · October 19, 2005

OK. . . here's my stab at #13. I'm far from expert at this, and I think overdid it in a few ways.

If you guys think I'm on the right track here, I'll volunteer for some of the remaining ones. Rutt, if you think it's a disaster, tell me (I swear I can take it) and I'll leave the others for more capable volunteers.

rutt · October 19, 2005

Laurie wrote:

OK. . . here's my stab at #13. I'm far from expert at this, and I think overdid it in a few ways.

Hey, these are hard and it's even hard to judge the results, because they aren't going to be perfect. I like what you did with this shot best so far. I'll post this and Wholenewlight's versions both and Lindsay can pick.

Try to pick one that nobody else is working on (there are just two right now) and please let us know before you start, OK?

rutt · October 19, 2005

One trick from the LAB book that I think is very relevant here is to make a layer or duplicate of the image before you start and then at the very end consider blending it with your final result. That way you can go too far the blend can bring it back a little.

rutt · October 19, 2005

There is definilty a learning curve here. I'm doing a little better I think.

Before:

After:

A little selective color to get the whites and blacks cleaner at the end helped a lot here. Also using the green channel for a luminosity blend for his face.

I found you cannot USM these in the traditional way, but HIgh RAdius LOw AMount L channel sharpening does seem to work well. Here I used a radius of 8 and an amount of 37, threshold 7.

Laurie · October 19, 2005

I'll work on 00033, then!

Laurie · October 19, 2005

Here's a quick try on 00033.

Before:

After:

DavidTO · October 19, 2005

Laurie wrote:

Here's a quick try on 00033.

Nice job. May as well crop it at this point....

Laurie · October 19, 2005

'K--done.

DavidTO wrote:

Nice job. May as well crop it at this point....

smittymike19 · October 19, 2005

retry
ok i just lloked at the photo of the military i retouched and it appears too staurated. i would like to resubmit, even though i know it is the low res version (the high res version wasnt up when i did the correction). there is a simple trick to get photos to increase in resolution that scott kelby talks about in cs2 guide for photgraphers. if anyone has the book please share it here. otherwise i will when i get home tonight.

http://smittymike19.smugmug.com/photos/40687456-L.jpg

DavidTO · October 19, 2005

smittymike19 wrote:

ok i just lloked at the photo of the military i retouched and it appears too staurated. i would like to resubmit, even though i know it is the low res version (the high res version wasnt up when i did the correction). there is a simple trick to get photos to increase in resolution that scott kelby talks about in cs2 guide for photgraphers. if anyone has the book please share it here. otherwise i will when i get home tonight.

http://smittymike19.smugmug.com/photos/40687456-L.jpg

The trick is to increase by 10%. Do as many times as necessary, but always do 10%.

rutt · October 19, 2005

smittymike19 wrote:

ok i just lloked at the photo of the military i retouched and it appears too staurated. i would like to resubmit, even though i know it is the low res version (the high res version wasnt up when i did the correction). there is a simple trick to get photos to increase in resolution that scott kelby talks about in cs2 guide for photgraphers. if anyone has the book please share it here. otherwise i will when i get home tonight.

http://smittymike19.smugmug.com/photos/40687456-L.jpg

Thanks, I'll add to the gallery. Lindsay did notice that this was lower resolution than the one she mailed me, so I think she cares about that. Bear is also going to take a retry at it starting with the better original. When we have a few different efforts, I'm taking the attitude that Lindsay can pick her own favorite.

There is one more shot not yet spoken for:
scan00062 I'd like to see that one get done at least once before we redo one that is already going to end up pretty good.

A resolution improving technology would be great here. My guess is you'd want to do this first before any other edits, but what do I know? I've heard a lot about Genuine Fractals over the years. Does someone have a Genuine Fractals Merit Badge?

After we get that one last shot spoken for, if you feel you can do much better than one of the edits posted in the gallery, please let us know and then go for it. I don't have any ego invested here, and I'm sure everyone else just wants the Stoner family to get nice results. For me, anyway, this is a very different kind of PP than I normally do, so it's a real learning experience.

GREAPER · October 19, 2005

I will try scan62

behr655 · October 19, 2005

Here is a link to my re-touch of scan0009-original. The link is to the original size but cropped to print 8x10. The original was 12x16 and I didn't know if Lindsay could print that size.

http://behr655.smugmug.com/photos/40710379-O.jpg

Here is the medium shot.

The original was actually much tougher to work on. Showed MUCH more dust and defects than the low res. My re-touch still has some dust but it does not show when printed 8x10. Interesting note. I believe this may have been a hand tinted photo to start with but somewhere along the line it was re-colored with what seems to be pastel. If you look at the original take notice of the metals, buttons and ribbons.

Bear

behr655 · October 19, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

The trick is to increase by 10%. Do as many times as necessary, but always do 10%.

<Johnny Carson>I did not know that</Johnny Carson> Thanks for the tip.

Bear

behr655 · October 19, 2005

rutt wrote:

There is one more shot not yet spoken for:
scan00062 I'd like to see that one get done at least once before we redo one that is already going to end up pretty good.

I'll give it a shot

Bear

rutt · October 19, 2005

Wow, Bear, nice pro job. I wish the ones I did looked as good. Want to take a sot at one of them? I'd say scan0006 is probably precious to the family and I know I could have done a better job; it was my first one, really.

behr655 · October 19, 2005

rutt wrote:

Wow, Bear, nice pro job. I wish the ones I did looked as good. Want to take a sot at one of them? I'd say scan0006 is probably precious to the family and I know I could have done a better job; it was my first one, really.

I'll give it a shot.

Here is a link to scan00062. It is enlarged and re-sized to print at 8x10 although I think 5x7 would be better. I did not test print it.
http://behr655.smugmug.com/photos/40717623-O.jpg

Here is the medium shot.

Bear

behr655 · October 19, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

I will try scan62

Ooops! didn't see this. Sorry.

Bear

GREAPER · October 19, 2005

Hey man, It's all good, I just finished mine, and yours is better. I will work on it some more, but unless I get something I think improves in some way, I would say go with yours.

ORIGINAL SIZE

behr655 · October 19, 2005

Here is a link to my try at scan0006. This is a tough one and I can't get the white balance right.
http://behr655.smugmug.com/photos/40732045-O.jpg
Here is the medium shot.

Bear

Andy · October 19, 2005

way to go, everyone. rutt, thanks so much for leading this effort.

mereimage · October 20, 2005

Rutt here are a few I did last night before you had everything organized. Hope it doesn't mess anything up. These were difficult and I wasn't going to post them since I wasn't particularly satisfied with them but you can decide what you want to do with them. Its a kind effort everyone is making, I hope it gives his family some solace.

.......................Mereimage

Help do a good deed, restore a Cecil Stoner photo

Comments