francis_dantuono

Hey.

Years ago, a former member here did a great Color restoration of the following photo, their restoration is the second version 

I was wondering, if I was to provide a full size scan of the photo, would someone be able to restore the full size version to look the same as the original color restoration?

And could someone a full size scan of the third pic below in a similar way? 

https://ibb.co/Hq7smJR

28 minutes ago, SCL said:

Thanks, hat angle (meaning below the subject, face on, etc) and what sort of lighting you feel was used?

 

The following photo was taken circa 1970-1972 abs was part of an ID photo, however it is to me close enough to an HD photo of the subject (deceased relative) despite the horrible background color

However, the professional scan below I feel was way too oversatured and too high in contrast 

https://ibb.co/2gt0JRS

I was hoping someone might correct the colors for me 

The second, marked id -3 pic is an attempt by myself to correct it

The third/fourth  pic are color reference pics of subject in 1972 in natural - ambient lightning.
 

Hey,

Does it appear balanced nicely, not un-straight or titled in any way? Also, would you recommend any tweaks with regard to colors and such?

What is the first photo you're sure you took? Post here if you have it easily accessible.

 

I may have taken pictures before this, but these are the earliest I know for sure. These pictures were taken by me in the summer of 1995 and I was about 4 1/2 years old:

 

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

 

http://i.imgur.com/a6U5spV.jpg

 

 

They were taken with a Sigma Point & Shoot camera.

I'm goin nuts here, can't you find some way to skirt p/n laws and give me a hint on where to find this photo?

 

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

[quote="

 

Photo removed. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos you did not take.

 

Francis, it looks like the moderators removed the photo per rules. The workaround that is acceptable is to put the link to the photo in your posting. That way all we have to do is click the link to see the photo and PN does not have to deal with an angry photographer that has his photo being displayed on this site without permission.

 

For those arriving late, the photo was a black and white image of an older gentleman raising a one or two year old high above him. It was a good shot and perhaps Francis will post a link to the photo so others can participate in the discussion.

 

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

Did anyone here use professional grade equipment in the 1960s through 1970s? I have a few private questions I would like to ask if so.

I really like this photo. It would never occur to me to question whether the photo was staged or not.

 

I only asked out of curiosity. The photo was the only photograph of my grandfather with any of his grandchildren (he died two years later) and I guess having an inkling as to how it went down would in a way be like being there.

As best as you can tell, does it appear as if this photo was staged? Is there any way it could've been taken candidly?

 

I ask because the story goes an amateur photographer happened to snap this photo for his photo class and asked my mother if she wanted to buy it, and she said sure. But it feels somehow too professional appearing to be have been shot in the moment. I don't know anything about the photographer or what equipment was used - this happened in 1973 - memories are fuzzy.

 

Anyone want to lend their opinion both on whether it was staged or not, and what techniques might have been used to create it?

 

The photo is 11 x 14.

 

Photo removed. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos you did not take.

<p>I currently have my most precious photos scanned as 600 to 2400 DPI High Res TIFF files.<br /><br />The question is, is TIFF a good file type for long term archiving? Is it subject to data loss over time?</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />I scanned back in 2009 two Polaroids of my grandfather. They were the standard small Polaroid size. I scanned them at 600 DPI, JPEG. Stupidly (being 19) I cropped off the white edges of the Polaroid, which reduced the resolution of each to 1640 x 1744. They are good enough scans that I can zoom into them around 50% in Windows Photo Viewer before they get too pixelly. The photos are shots of my grandfather standing at a distance from the camera. I can't zoom into see the fine features of his face, but they give me an overall portrait of the original picture.<br>

The question is, what, if any steps can I take to future proof these scans to ensure I can:<br>

1) Make decent sized reprints with a similar level of data in say 20-30 years;<br>

2) Ensure my copy continues to exist for generations to come?<br /><br /><br>

Due to family conflicts, I no longer - and given the nature of the family conflict - will never - have access to the original prints again to do a better re-scan. What can I do with what I have to make sure my great grandkids can enjoy these two photos?</p>

<p>Yes - the original print is actually even worse than the first scan in terms of the overexposure. The first scan was an attempt to increase the highlights. Also, I'm not sure if the tilting was because of the scan or because the Polaroid was a little bent/curled when scanned. It appears the right side is bigger than the left. Do you think I should get it re-scanned, or is the tilt subtle enough so as not to be jarring?</p>

<p>Here was another scan done by myself years ago. This was without any touchups done.<br>

<img src="https://i.imgsafe.org/a64d741000.jpg" alt="" width="1299" height="1080" /></p>

<p>The original is a Polaroid. Circa 1967. This is a restored version of a scanned photo. What do you mean the highlights don't seem to have any detail?</p>

<p>Or am I being overly critical? I didn't scan it, someone else did for me.<br>

<img src="https://i.imgsafe.org/a4fb93d700.jpg" alt="" width="1354" height="1080" /></p>

<p>Another example:<br /><br />1967 Polaroid Land Camera Photo (Color/Restored):<br />Bit depth 24<br />Color Representation: Uncalibrated<br />Resolution Unit: 2<br />1200 DPI Horizontal Resolution<br />1200 DPI Vertical Resolution<br>

Compression: Uncompressed<br />Width: 5063 Pixels<br />Height: 4039 Pixels<br /><br />TIFF format.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I should be more specific - as per my order, the photos are <em>scanned</em> at 1200 DPI. Larger size prints at 600 to 1200 on case by case basis.<br /> Example - a medium size B/W print from the 1930s was scanned with the following values:</p>

<p>Program: Adobe Photoshop CC 2014<br /> Bit depth 24<br /> Color Representation: Uncalibrated<br /> Resolution Unit: 2<br /> 1200 DPI Horizontal Resolution<br /> 1200 DPI Vertical Resolution<br />Width: 7,361 Pixels<br />Height: 11,150 Pixels<br /> This was saved as uncompressed JPeg, and a restored version was done as a TIFF.<br>

TIFF version has a width of 7384 X 11,105 Pixels.<br>

<br /> <br /> <br /> Smaller photos are scanned at 2400 DPI.</p>

<p>@Mike - The negatives, outside of one silver nitrate negative from 1945, all are lost to history. My family never realized the importance of negatives sadly. <br /><br />Many of the more important photos we likely never had negatives of - these include many 1960s-1970s era Driver License Photos and Work IDs of my grandfather, which are in essence headshots - thumb size. These thumb sized prints were scanned at 2400 and saved as TIFFs.<br>

All other prints - mostly 1930s - 1960s era b/w and color Polaroid prints - were saved at 1200 DPI/TIFF.<br>

What would you suggest to do to create "Museum Quality" scans of prints? I simply want to be able to view them, or be able to reprint them at the same level of quality, in 50 years; and have my descendants be able to reprint these photos at the same quality in centuries to come.<br /><br />Am I on the right track?</p>

<p>When I have my photos scanned, the guy who scans/restores them does them usually at 1200 DPI, in the TIFF format. He also saves the original non-restored image as a 1200 DPI JPeg. I am wondering if this is a good format/DPI for archival purposes - where the photos can say be reprinted (or even just viewed) in 50 or so years, or easily changed from one file medium to another without data loss? The way photos of Presidents from as long ago as the Matthew Brady era can be viewed without general loss today.<br /><br />The resolutions for said photos usually end somewhere between 2000 x 2000 up to in some cases 7000 x 10,000 in resolution, depending on the original size of the photograph(s).</p>

<p>A circa 1967 Polaroid I have got bent (from the upper right side) with a curl while handling. After it was done being used, I gently placed it back inside the photo album it came from and placed an album on top of that. Will the pressure help unbend it with time? It wasn't otherwise damaged.</p>

<p>What size can I print the following scans at based on their resolution, without any pixelyness and at the same level of quality as the original scan?<br /><br />Resolutions:<br />1) 1639 x 1710<br>

2) 1640 x 1744<br>

3) 1452 x 2070<br>

4) 1275 x 1275<br>

5) 2712 x 2158</p>

<p>Some of them were scanned by me, and I recall the original scan dpi for some. Any DPI labelled 600 is the original scan size. The ones with the smaller DPI size - the 96 DPI one wasn't done by me, but my sister for a family project. The 72 DPI one was done by me, but I'm not sure what the original scan DPI was. I know at the time I was scanning stuff at anywhere between 600 and 1200 DPI. But it's been so long I couldn't tell you what the original scan DPI was; perhaps on these prints that have a lower DPI, I made a mistake? Or perhaps the computer processed them at 72? No way of knowing.</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />Years ago, I was able to scan some color photos from a relative. Said relative and I are no longer on any good terms, so I will not have access to these photos ever again. That said, given the following dimensions of the following scans, what size can I hope to print and make new (hopefully lasting) copies with without any loss of image quality or without every single dust particle showing on the print? Basically, the way the print looked when I scanned it?<br /><br />Image 1: 600 DPI, Resolution: 1645 x 1710<br>

<br />Image 2: 600 DPI, Resolution: 1640 x 1744<br /><br /><br>

Image 3: 600 DPI, Resolution: 5534 x 4225<br /><br /><br>

Image 4: 600 DPI, Resolution: 4169 x 5509<br /><br /><br>

Image 5: 72 DPI, Resolution: 2088 x 1826<br /><br /><br>

Image 6: 96 DPI, Resolution 1452 x 2070<br /><br />Lastly, Image 7: 300 DPI, Resolution 2865 x 2255</p>