Very old Victorian photos

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Peter James, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. Peter James

    Savageduck Guest

    These I scanned of my wife's Grandparents at 600 ppi and resized to 300
    when the fix was completed.
    <
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared Images/Savageduck/Evans-05AW1C2.jpg< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_567.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Feb 12, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nice restoration.

    Question, though: Weren't virtually all photos of that era sepia-toned?
    If so, that may be the "correct" final result after cleaning up and
    bringing out as much useful detail as possible.

    None of the images of Mr. Stephens have enough pixels to be able to do a
    whole lot.
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 12, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter James

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Feb 12, 2014
    #23
  4. Peter James

    Savageduck Guest

    Thanks. Those were from the Irish side of my wife's family. The first
    is the bridal photograph of Katharine Webb to Joseph Taylour. He was a
    surgeon in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, hence the uniform.
    That was one of the reasons I didn't use a grey scale B&W conversion
    which can end up looking much like a photocopy. So, I added some very
    subdued toning in NIK Silver Efex Pro2

    There were many different levels of Sepia tone used from light to quite
    heavy. Other common tones created by the reproduction method used, also
    of different levels were Selenium, Cyanotype, and Ambrotype, along with
    some very red effects from heavy sepia toning.
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_print_toning >
    < http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=135 >
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanotype >
    Agreed, the scan he provided of "Grandfather Stephens" is seriously
    damaged. I can only hope that he has some better originals to work from
    for scanning and restoration.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 12, 2014
    #24
  5. Peter James

    Savageduck Guest

    Royal Ulster Constabulary, it is a "Celtic Harp"
    It is a studio logo for the studio which produce both prints "LaFayette Ltd."
    Here is the back of the wedding shot:
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Evans-05bA.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Feb 12, 2014
    #25
  6. Peter James

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I recognised it.
    Not the Lafayette of WW1. I didn't really think so.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 12, 2014
    #26
  7. Peter James

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Feb 12, 2014
    #27
  8. Peter James

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Feb 12, 2014
    #28
  9. Peter James

    Peter James Guest

    that seems to be eminently sensible, thank you.
    I don't know of any organisation or persons who might find these family
    photos of any interest. But it's something to think about.

    Peter
     
    Peter James, Feb 12, 2014
    #29
  10. Peter James

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Feb 13, 2014
    #30
  11. Peter James

    Eric Stevens Guest

    All in the setup of the plate camera. Probably a slightly raised front
    stage.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 13, 2014
    #31
  12. Peter James

    PeterN Guest

    Most likely yup. there is also a lot of interesting detail.
    I have yet to play with the PC lenses.
     
    PeterN, Feb 14, 2014
    #32
  13. Peter James

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2014.02.10, 19:37 , Savageduck wrote:
    : > On 2014-02-10 22:14:44 +0000, Alan Browne
    : > <> said:
    : >
    : >> On 2014.02.10, 17:04 , Savageduck wrote:
    :
    : >>> OK! Let's compare.
    : >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_565.jpg >
    : >>
    : >> Looking at your (full sized shot) saw all sorts of harsh contrasts and
    : >> little black dots everywhere... these aren't as bad in mine because
    : >> the 'grey' left in place reduces those contrasts.
    : >
    : > ...but your intensified grey (which isn't in the original) left in place
    : > is awful.
    :
    : The 'grey' is the yellow from the scan after de-sat. There is no
    : telling what the actual photo looked like when it was printed.
    :
    : To me it mutes the contrast that is "awful" in yours.
    :
    : >
    : >> (And no - I'm not interested in fooling with this further).
    : >
    : > Neither am I.
    :
    : Let's go have a beer and tell dirty jokes then.

    Looks like you guys need someone to cast the tiebreaker vote:
    Sorry, Alan, the Duck wins this round.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 14, 2014
    #33
  14. Peter James

    Alan Browne Guest

    I used a different approach and got a result that I find less ugly than
    that harsh shit the 'duck presented. He or you may prefer the glaring
    white emptiness, harsh artifacts and random black dots all over the
    place... I don't.

    Given the poor quality of the scan (the scanner's abilities were not
    great - esp. presenting a poor quality scan in a massive 9 MB file (that
    contained maybe 500 kB of usable data).
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 14, 2014
    #34
  15. Peter James

    Savageduck Guest

    Aah! Taste, it is a truly odd and inexplicable thing.
    Yup! That was a seriously poor scan, and there is no telling the actual
    condition of the unscanned original, but I suspect there was little in
    the was of useful, salvageable content. So what we got was the best the
    OP was able to provide.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 14, 2014
    #35
  16. Peter James

    Alan Browne Guest

    Was yours surgically removed to allow you to become a cop?

    (Bwahahaahahah)!

    Oh! congrats on CA's "urban county" CC rules being squashed by the 9th.
    A good scan of that photo would have been at 600 dpi. Just beyond the
    actual content in the image. The "camera data" in the TIF shows 300
    (caveat - sometimes these things get tagged with a default or nominal
    printer setting - depending on the scan s/w).

    From a 600 dpi version more filtering options would have opened up, I
    think, leaving more "original content" while reducing the ravages of time.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 14, 2014
    #36
  17. Peter James

    Savageduck Guest

    Actually mine became much more discerning as I gathered experience on
    the job, to the point that I am able to detect scumbaggishness, and
    questionable taste at 20 paces.
    Yup! The truly interesting "urban county" in question isn't San Diego,
    but San Francisco which has a total of 10 CCW permits issued. Two to
    politicians, Diane Feinstein and Willie Brown, four to judges, and four
    to some other folks with connections. Compared with Del Norte County up
    on the Oregon border with over 200 CCWs issued.
    I don't have that sort of problem. As a retired Peace Officer I have to
    maintain an annual qualification (which I did for this year on Tuesday)
    and that gives me 50 State CC privileges under H.R. 218 LEOSA.
    Somehow I doubt that there was much that could be done with it other
    than scan to have a record of the time damaged original digitally
    preserved in its current state.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 15, 2014
    #37
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.