Any Photo Restore Wizards Want To Tackle This?
Feb 4, 2022 18:17:28 #
Feb 4, 2022 18:36:46 #
If one of you wants to take a shot at it, I'd be curious to see what you come up with. If not, at least you got to see a real photo taken with one of those cheap little cameras. Thanks![/quote]
I submitted this earlier today but it never appeared on UHH?? This copy will never be as good as the original because this shot copies the paper texture as well as the dots from the original printing process. But I tried.
I submitted this earlier today but it never appeared on UHH?? This copy will never be as good as the original because this shot copies the paper texture as well as the dots from the original printing process. But I tried.
Feb 4, 2022 20:24:23 #
espJSB
Loc: Cal
This is based on R.G.'s excellent cleaned-up version. It's just a little colorization from PS neural filters - didn't spend much time on it. Sometimes a little color can make these old photos a little more interesting to look at - or not. It's subjective, of course.
Feb 4, 2022 20:50:25 #
radiojohn wrote:
Do you know what the camera and the no-name no-ISO listed film was like? The whole thing was never really meant to be used. It was a souvenir gimmick sold at carnivals, parades, etc. Collectable, yes. User, no.
However, without it, this particular photo capturing a cherished moment in life wouldn't exist. Sometimes it is better to have a poorly performing camera than none at all. I think some photographers are so obsessed with perfection that they forget what really matters.
Feb 4, 2022 20:51:11 #
Feb 4, 2022 20:54:11 #
Feb 4, 2022 21:01:08 #
Later I "moved up" to a Minolta 16! Here's a candid shot from high school graduation. Six day later I was in the Army. That was June. Same 16mm camera in October at Intelligence School in Baltimore. And, yes, we trained with Marines.
Feb 5, 2022 08:15:53 #
Since this is one of my side jobs . I thought I would give your photo a try . I know with old photos there never perfect sometimes . But maybe it will meet with your satisfaction . Tommy
Feb 5, 2022 08:57:12 #
Very nice of you to give it a shot! As others have said, it would be better to do a very hi-res scan to give people like you more to work with. Thanks!
Feb 5, 2022 11:10:40 #
radiojohn wrote:
Here's the backstory on why I wonder if any of you... (show quote)
Radio John I tried to see if using some of Topaz products might help, Like GigaPixel and Sharpen but mostly just working slowly on individual pixel replacement... I can't see much difference than what has been already been submitted Bogo
Feb 5, 2022 11:57:41 #
Feb 5, 2022 14:43:40 #
Bogo wrote:
Radio John I tried to see if using some of Topaz products might help, Like GigaPixel and Sharpen but mostly just working slowly on individual pixel replacement... I can't see much difference than what has been already been submitted Bogo
Feb 5, 2022 19:57:02 #
cahale
Loc: San Angelo, TX
User ID wrote:
If this much is just my In-Phone editing, working from a downloaded original in a real editor ahold work pretty well.
First, as others have already said, this is not a workable image. it is too small, and the 96 resolution sucks. And even with a high resolution scan, there is really no way to get rid of all the fuzz. Breaks and scratches are fixable, and SOME de-haze can be done, but it will still be junk to anyone not personally knowing the people or circumstances of its taking.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.