frizzylee
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 170 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by frizzylee on Apr 5, 2021 21:56:08 GMT
Before I give up on some (many?) of the photos I am trying to resurrect, I would like to ask if I am just expecting too much. Below are two photos. The first old photo is physically very small and I scanned it that way hoping I might be able to enlarge it a bit (2 or 3 square inches). I am using some of the Topaz tools (ReFocus, Sharpen AI, deNoise and more) to help, but Topaz will not let a first-time poster upload photos. So much for asking them.
The second image was the best I could do with PSE19 or Topaz or anything else. And it may very well be the best that can be done. But before I give up on (1 inch square) photos like this I need to know if this is about the best I can expect or if I need to get up to speed on this.
  |
|
|
|
Post by fotofrank on Apr 6, 2021 1:27:40 GMT
Pat - working off a low resolution scan and then attempting to enlarge it will probably fail. Using a higher resolution scan of the photo will probably pick up the texture of the photo -not a good thing either. I have no idea what you expected from a scan of a small print. Have you tried to photograph the smaller photos? Or have someone with a close-up lens photograph them? This is an image I took of a ruler with a macro lens. The ruler show about an inch and a half and the actual image is 20x13 inches (6000x4000 pixels at 300ppi)  |
|
|
|
Post by kdcintx on Apr 6, 2021 20:15:13 GMT
Great idea fotofrank
|
|
frizzylee
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 170
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by frizzylee on Apr 7, 2021 18:31:48 GMT
+Indeed it is, Frank. Wish my little photo was that big. I will have to search around to see if I actually have the physical small print to work from. This was among my scans. At any rate, I now know that if I can find the print there might be hope.
Thank you so much for posting the ruler example, Sepiana. If I am successful will let you know.
Pat
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Apr 7, 2021 19:29:20 GMT
Thank you so much for posting the ruler example, Sepiana. If I am successful will let you know. Pat, I can't take credit for posting this. fotofrank is the one who deserves all the credit. You couldn't be in better hands; he knows his stuff. Success with your project! Keep us posted! |
|
Chris
Established Forum Member
Posts: 488
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Chris on Apr 11, 2021 11:36:03 GMT
Frizzylee, I had a look at the original scanned image. It's impossible to upsize it and get a decent image of the faces of the man on the left and the boy. The original scan has a very low resolution. The only solution as FotoFrank suggests, is as to get hold of the original picture and rescan or photograph it at a higher resolution.
As a general rule, you should scan at least twice the resolution you think you will need at the final print size. To print a 1x1 inch picture at 2x2 inches at 300 ppi, you would need to scan the original 1x1 at least 600 ppi.
If I was archiving this picture, I would choose 800 or 1200 ppi and scan as a high quality jpg.
If its not possible to get hold of the original the picture and it has sentimental value, then another option would be to ask an artist friend to make a sketch from the picture.
Kind regards
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Apr 23, 2021 6:06:07 GMT
I agree with photographing the photos as opposed to scanning.
Inexpensive Macro "tubes" will really help in filling the frame of the camera with the tiny photo; Macro tubes will also make most non-macro lenses behave as macros.
Although I have not yet tried it, we have a Neewer TTL Macro Ring Flash that I believe will be an asset to such work.
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Apr 23, 2021 6:09:19 GMT
I will have to search around to see if I actually have the physical small print to work from. Pat You should be able to achieve the same result by printing your un-altered digital copy at original size and then photographing that. |
|
