Can old digital photos be improved?

kreuzn · 02-19-2014, 03:58 AM

Thanks everyone! I'll have to wait until Friday, as that's when I'm back at work & back with an internet connection. My iPad data will get eaten too quickly otherwise.

One thing that keeps coming to my mind is how much I prefer to be the one behind the camera. I'd never consider myself to be a pro photographer, but I know enough to make sure if I have a camera at events I'll at least get a couple of reasonable, worth printing photos.

My baby brother (who is 27!) is getting married next month. I'm not in the wedding, and even though the couple are having the same photographer as we had, I'll be taking my camera along.

Last edited by kreuzn; 02-19-2014 at 04:05 AM.

**Schraubstock** · 02-19-2014, 06:05 AM - **1 Like**

There is an old saying:
you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

This is the best I came up with. At least you can now make out some faces.

Greetings

P.S.
I used a number of programs, Nik, Athentech Imaging, Topaz Labs and OLONEO.

mrNewt · 02-19-2014, 06:42 AM

You won't be able to do much for those photos... they will just become blurs and shapes rather than humans

.

Simply put... no matter how great your software is, you cannot create something out of nothing... real life is a little different than movies (see that silly CSI series and their amazing software).
You are better off re-creating the images with a brush in Photoshop (but then you need other kind of skills).

Unless you have some RAW files... then you MIGHT be able to save something...

wildman · 02-19-2014, 07:35 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mrNewt

no matter how great your software is, you cannot create something out of nothing

I think, for those of us who tried, that was exactly the challenge, - to try to make something out of nothing or to at least see how close we can come.

In any case I'm house-bound by yet another blizzard with nothing but time on my hands.
If I can't be out there taking pics at least I can fuss with other people's pictures.

Last edited by wildman; 02-19-2014 at 07:40 AM.

kreuzn · 02-19-2014, 07:40 PM

Had a look at all the photos, unfortunately they're JPEG's. I thought I had some RAW but I'm wrong. Oh well, nothing I can do about that. Perhaps I could try some of the software suggested in this post anyway. Or even play around with effects, such as sepia etc. they won't become perfect, I didn't ever expect that, but at least they might become better to view or print.
Thanks everyone for your participation and advise. I really appreciate it

DSims · 02-21-2014, 02:50 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by kreuzn

Had a look at all the photos, unfortunately they're JPEG's. I thought I had some RAW but I'm wrong. Oh well, nothing I can do about that. Perhaps I could try some of the software suggested in this post anyway. Or even play around with effects, such as sepia etc. they won't become perfect, I didn't ever expect that, but at least they might become better to view or print.
Thanks everyone for your participation and advise. I really appreciate it

In that case Topaz Labs DeJPEG might be worth a look:

Topaz DeJEPG - Eliminate JPEG Compression Artifacts

ghl · 02-21-2014, 04:33 AM - **1 Like**

Here's a stab at it.

Last edited by ghl; 07-09-2014 at 03:43 PM.

kreuzn · 02-21-2014, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by ghl

Here's a stab at it.

I'd say that's a pretty good stab at it!

emalvick · 03-19-2014, 02:00 PM

Stepping back to the beginning you commented that your professional photographer used film. Have you thought of having those images or negatives scanned and working from there. You can scan at a higher resolution and give yourself some tiff files (or raw) and work from there. The nice thing about film and negatives is they have much better resolution than we might think; afterall they're analog so there are no pixels.

OnTheWeb · 03-19-2014, 02:25 PM

This is from NeatImage if you just remove half the noise so it doesn't get so plastic looking. Original on the left. You can see the tablecloth, bar, and her dress greatly improved looking. Little bit of shadow lift in FastStone brought the lighting up on the faces a bit. Looks better larger. Yes, RAW would help amazingly.

---------- Post added 03-19-14 at 05:30 PM ----------

PS. If she'll let you, you should marry her, again.

kreuzn · 03-19-2014, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by emalvick

Stepping back to the beginning you commented that your professional photographer used film. Have you thought of having those images or negatives scanned and working from there. You can scan at a higher resolution and give yourself some tiff files (or raw) and work from there. The nice thing about film and negatives is they have much better resolution than we might think; afterall they're analog so there are no pixels.

Hadn't even thought about the originals from photographer. Thanks for the suggestion

---------- Post added 03-20-14 at 04:50 PM ----------

Originally posted by OnTheWeb

This is from NeatImage if you just remove half the noise so it doesn't get so plastic looking. Original on the left. You can see the tablecloth, bar, and her dress greatly improved looking. Little bit of shadow lift in FastStone brought the lighting up on the faces a bit. Looks better larger. Yes, RAW would help amazingly.

---------- Post added 03-19-14 at 05:30 PM ----------

PS. If she'll let you, you should marry her, again.

Thanks for these pics, I've got lots to think about, & lots to learn.
Oh & I'm the bride so I'll take your PS as a very nice compliment

**Tamia** · 03-20-2014, 05:35 AM

As I looked at Kreuzn's prints it occurred to me some might benefit from being turned into "paintings" using PP. My photo processing skills are limited, but using Gimp I came up with this:

Like I said, my PP skills are not well developed, but with the right application and abilities, some of your images might look good if given a painterly work-over.

narual · 03-20-2014, 08:45 AM

DFine plus Perfect Portrait plus SilverFX worked OK for a quick & dirty if you don't mind B&W. I didn't feel like cleaning up the eyes. my version of portrait plus does weird things when I define the eyeballs to be something it considers too small.

link81 · 03-20-2014, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Tamia

As I looked at Kreuzn's prints it occurred to me some might benefit from being turned into "paintings" using PP. My photo processing skills are limited, but using Gimp I came up with this:

i was thinking the exact same thing, maybe instead of trying to make them into pictures, play arround and get a little more abstract. oil/watercolor things like that.

magkelly · 03-20-2014, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by kreuzn

Here's a couple of photos. File size is tiny! In the kb's!

The print size on that jpeg is about 3". Even with killing as much of the noise as possible there's not really enough data in that file to give you a decent print, not even a 5x6. When you get the raw file up I'll take a shot but there's not much you can do with this. Not enough data to work with. Hopefully the RAW will give us a bit more date more to work with. I have 1.3 MP shots that I was able to get a snap shot print from, but it wasn't easy. Stuff like this is exactly why I ended up shooting raw all the time. You can stretch the MP some with a raw file, but it's a lot harder with a jpg.

02-19-2014, 06:05 AM - 1 Like	#17
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	There is an old saying: you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This is the best I came up with. At least you can now make out some faces. Greetings P.S. I used a number of programs, Nik, Athentech Imaging, Topaz Labs and OLONEO. Last edited by Schraubstock; 11-01-2014 at 04:22 PM.

02-19-2014, 06:42 AM	#18
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	You won't be able to do much for those photos... they will just become blurs and shapes rather than humans . Simply put... no matter how great your software is, you cannot create something out of nothing... real life is a little different than movies (see that silly CSI series and their amazing software). You are better off re-creating the images with a brush in Photoshop (but then you need other kind of skills). Unless you have some RAW files... then you MIGHT be able to save something... Last edited by mrNewt; 02-19-2014 at 06:48 AM.

03-19-2014, 02:25 PM	#25
OnTheWeb Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 791	This is from NeatImage if you just remove half the noise so it doesn't get so plastic looking. Original on the left. You can see the tablecloth, bar, and her dress greatly improved looking. Little bit of shadow lift in FastStone brought the lighting up on the faces a bit. Looks better larger. Yes, RAW would help amazingly. ---------- Post added 03-19-14 at 05:30 PM ---------- PS. If she'll let you, you should marry her, again. Attached Images

03-20-2014, 08:45 AM	#28
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	DFine plus Perfect Portrait plus SilverFX worked OK for a quick & dirty if you don't mind B&W. I didn't feel like cleaning up the eyes. my version of portrait plus does weird things when I define the eyeballs to be something it considers too small. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Suggestions on digitizing old photos or restoring old photos	dmnf	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	11-21-2013 08:12 AM
News Larger photos can now be attached in posts!	Adam	Site Suggestions and Help	8	12-09-2012 05:15 PM
digital photo of old photos	oldshovel80	Photographic Technique	8	05-22-2007 06:28 AM
Going through old photos can be fun..	palmor	Post Your Photos!	1	03-21-2007 10:45 PM
can the digital display on the k10 and k100 be adjusted?	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	12-28-2006 06:54 AM

02-19-2014, 03:58 AM	#16
kreuzn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 105 Original Poster	Thanks everyone! I'll have to wait until Friday, as that's when I'm back at work & back with an internet connection. My iPad data will get eaten too quickly otherwise. One thing that keeps coming to my mind is how much I prefer to be the one behind the camera. I'd never consider myself to be a pro photographer, but I know enough to make sure if I have a camera at events I'll at least get a couple of reasonable, worth printing photos. My baby brother (who is 27!) is getting married next month. I'm not in the wedding, and even though the couple are having the same photographer as we had, I'll be taking my camera along. Last edited by kreuzn; 02-19-2014 at 04:05 AM.

02-19-2014, 07:35 AM - 1 Like	#19
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by mrNewt no matter how great your software is, you cannot create something out of nothing I think, for those of us who tried, that was exactly the challenge, - to try to make something out of nothing or to at least see how close we can come. In any case I'm house-bound by yet another blizzard with nothing but time on my hands. If I can't be out there taking pics at least I can fuss with other people's pictures. Last edited by wildman; 02-19-2014 at 07:40 AM.

02-19-2014, 07:40 PM	#20
kreuzn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 105 Original Poster	Had a look at all the photos, unfortunately they're JPEG's. I thought I had some RAW but I'm wrong. Oh well, nothing I can do about that. Perhaps I could try some of the software suggested in this post anyway. Or even play around with effects, such as sepia etc. they won't become perfect, I didn't ever expect that, but at least they might become better to view or print. Thanks everyone for your participation and advise. I really appreciate it

02-21-2014, 02:50 AM - 1 Like	#21
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by kreuzn Had a look at all the photos, unfortunately they're JPEG's. I thought I had some RAW but I'm wrong. Oh well, nothing I can do about that. Perhaps I could try some of the software suggested in this post anyway. Or even play around with effects, such as sepia etc. they won't become perfect, I didn't ever expect that, but at least they might become better to view or print. Thanks everyone for your participation and advise. I really appreciate it In that case Topaz Labs DeJPEG might be worth a look: Topaz DeJEPG - Eliminate JPEG Compression Artifacts

02-21-2014, 04:33 AM - 1 Like	#22
ghl Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 119	Here's a stab at it. Last edited by ghl; 07-09-2014 at 03:43 PM.

02-21-2014, 11:28 PM	#23
kreuzn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 105 Original Poster	Originally posted by ghl Here's a stab at it. I'd say that's a pretty good stab at it!

03-19-2014, 02:00 PM	#24
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Stepping back to the beginning you commented that your professional photographer used film. Have you thought of having those images or negatives scanned and working from there. You can scan at a higher resolution and give yourself some tiff files (or raw) and work from there. The nice thing about film and negatives is they have much better resolution than we might think; afterall they're analog so there are no pixels.

03-19-2014, 10:48 PM	#26
kreuzn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 105 Original Poster	Originally posted by emalvick Stepping back to the beginning you commented that your professional photographer used film. Have you thought of having those images or negatives scanned and working from there. You can scan at a higher resolution and give yourself some tiff files (or raw) and work from there. The nice thing about film and negatives is they have much better resolution than we might think; afterall they're analog so there are no pixels. Hadn't even thought about the originals from photographer. Thanks for the suggestion ---------- Post added 03-20-14 at 04:50 PM ---------- Originally posted by OnTheWeb This is from NeatImage if you just remove half the noise so it doesn't get so plastic looking. Original on the left. You can see the tablecloth, bar, and her dress greatly improved looking. Little bit of shadow lift in FastStone brought the lighting up on the faces a bit. Looks better larger. Yes, RAW would help amazingly. ---------- Post added 03-19-14 at 05:30 PM ---------- PS. If she'll let you, you should marry her, again. Thanks for these pics, I've got lots to think about, & lots to learn. Oh & I'm the bride so I'll take your PS as a very nice compliment

03-20-2014, 05:35 AM	#27
Tamia Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Here, there, and everywhere. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,384	As I looked at Kreuzn's prints it occurred to me some might benefit from being turned into "paintings" using PP. My photo processing skills are limited, but using Gimp I came up with this: Like I said, my PP skills are not well developed, but with the right application and abilities, some of your images might look good if given a painterly work-over.

03-20-2014, 08:52 AM	#29
link81 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 12822 Photos: Albums Posts: 459	Originally posted by Tamia As I looked at Kreuzn's prints it occurred to me some might benefit from being turned into "paintings" using PP. My photo processing skills are limited, but using Gimp I came up with this: i was thinking the exact same thing, maybe instead of trying to make them into pictures, play arround and get a little more abstract. oil/watercolor things like that.

03-20-2014, 08:55 AM	#30
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Originally posted by kreuzn Here's a couple of photos. File size is tiny! In the kb's! The print size on that jpeg is about 3". Even with killing as much of the noise as possible there's not really enough data in that file to give you a decent print, not even a 5x6. When you get the raw file up I'll take a shot but there's not much you can do with this. Not enough data to work with. Hopefully the RAW will give us a bit more date more to work with. I have 1.3 MP shots that I was able to get a snap shot print from, but it wasn't easy. Stuff like this is exactly why I ended up shooting raw all the time. You can stretch the MP some with a raw file, but it's a lot harder with a jpg.