Photo Restoration

Post by **Pandabean** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:08 pm

Hey all,

I managed to get the photo of whom I believe to be my great grandfather, Robert Greenlees. There were a few spots on it and it was faded so I manaed to restore it and was wondering what you thought of the job and whether anything else could be done?

Also why would Robert be dressed like this? He looks more upper class for being a shale miner.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r290 ... eafter.jpg

Also can anyone help make out this mess at the back? There are three ages given, 23, 25 and 29. It cant be 29 as he died in 1917 and was born in 1889 and died at the age of 27. I am guessing this was taken between 1910 and 1915. Also I am 90% sure that it says Rob Greenlees. I am not sure what it says at the top of the image.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r290 ... --back.jpg

Post by **emanday** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:24 pm

Hi Andy,

Whoever did that restoration did a great job. I got my son to have a look at the before/after (he's in graphic design/illustration) and he was quite impressed with the increased clarity and the clean removal of the spots, etc...

He did, however, suggest that sometimes changing a sepia image to black and white can also be helpful, but (he stressed) not in 100% of cases.

added later: He's just looked at the image of the back of the photo and made an observation. If someone was correcting/adding age or other details, they'd normally have written them below or above, or even scored out the wrong info. These "corrections" seem to have been arbitary in their placement. His suggestion was that the stronger script was original, while the fainter script was carbonned, for want of a better expression, from another photo the "writer" was adding details to under which your photo was lying face down. (Did that make sense?)

Please note, I am only the typist here - when it comes to this "expert image stuff" he's my guru!

Post by **Pandabean** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:30 pm

It was I that did the restoration

I use photoshop quite alot on photos, mainly my own photography but also on touching up my old photos. There are some however that would take a whole day to do. Its a great feeling when you see the original compared to the one you have worked on.

This one would have been clearer but it is backed onto old card and has that slight bend in it so it wasnt flat to the scanner glass.

I tried Black and White but I didnt like it.

I was even contemplating as a project to restore another photo to colour as details are given on the back of the photo that says he has fair hair, fresh complexion and blue eyes. I dont know if it will turn out great but I may do it to see what happens and how it looks.

Post by **emanday** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:38 pm

I'm a Photoshop addict myself, but still learning new stuff from my son. What do you think about his observations about the back of the photo?

Post by **Pandabean** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:47 pm

Yup I am always finding new features.

I agree kind of with your suggestion. Do you mean the writting that Rob Greenlees is in is the same as the age 29? But then the more darker oneseems like the writting going the other way which I would think is the photographers hand. I still dont get how they are two different.

I agree with you one some of the bits being how you described.

PS... if I dont make sense then ignore me as I am half asleep here.

emanday wrote:I'm a Photoshop addict myself, but still learning new stuff from my son. What do you think about his observations about the back of the photo?

Post by **emanday** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:09 am

We have some old photos where you can see where some of the pigment has gone exactly where someone has written on the back. We also have some of the corresponding photos where the matching text has been carbonned onto their back.

Obviously it is difficult to really judge from an internet image, but the "Age 25" text seems to be written in one hand and is, I would think, the correct age and may have been written shortly after the picture was taken. It is certainly of heavier quality so might have been real ink as opposed to biro. The text running sideways in another hand but also appears to be in ink, and the remaining text could be one or more examples of this carbonning effect which could be written by different hands!

Post by **Anne H** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:26 am

Hi Andy,

Lovely restoration…very clear and defined! I agree that sometimes it’s better to leave as sepia rather than changing to black & white…sepia seems to lend something special to a photo.

I don’t think you should be too surprised with his smart clothing. Shale minor or not, he would still have his Sunday best…. especially to have his photo taken. I think some of our ancestors dressed smarter than we sometimes think.

As to the writing on the photo…I may well be wrong, but it doesn’t look like carbon to me. I would think there would be at least some smudges made with the carbon…I don’t see smudges here. It looks like three different people doing the writing. The photographer with a “soft” hand and pen probably wrote the “sideways” writing and the 12X10. The "age 25" by someone else with a different pen and finally the third writer...

My first impression was that a child got a hold of the picture and decided to copy or practice writing using a biro pen that was running out of ink.
Does the actual photo have any indentations from the writing? The line under the ages "25 and 29" looks as if it's a "deliberate or heavy" hand with a biro and almost looks like it has left an impression on the cardboard…I’m assuming this is a heavy type cardboard photo.

I’m sure others will come along to give you some ideas.

Regards,
Anne H

Post by **Pandabean** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:52 am

The writting seems to have been done in pencil and the thinner lines have caused an indentation. I think I agree with you on the kid thing, if you look at the very top it looks like a "Geen", like someone was trying to repeat Greenlees. Also with the bottom (Ag 29) part age is missing an e. You are also right in that it is a thick carboard with the photo on it.

I dont have the original with me, my mother brought up when she was visiting and I told her to take it back down. I dont trust it up here.

Does anyone know how to rescue photos when the backing cardboard is damaged?

Post by **Pandabean** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:02 pm

I just tried to print it out but it was too dark, I have tried it in black and white and it does look better. All three of them together. Original on the left, the edited ones on the right.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r290 ... fterBW.jpg

Post by **emanday** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:30 pm

Hi Anne H,

I didn't mean that carbon paper was used. I used the expression "carbonning" to describe a situation where writing on the back of one photo might have resulted in the pigment transferring to whatever was under it, (as per the example of some of our old photos which I described).

Andy,

The B&W version certainly seems much clearer. I've done this to a few old ones for ease of studying. However, for display purposes, I suppose it is always nice to see the original sepia.