Vain photo restoration question and avoid the following print developer:

[Deja Q]

I've got this sunset picture. (BTW: Don't go to Proex; they left fingerprints and scratches on my negatives! x( Unforgiveable, considering their prices.)

I've scanned in the negative at 3200DPI (though the scanner says it's 3200x6400 optical resoultion). I've cleared up the scratches and now I've got a decent sized image on which to play with.

I intend to make a large 13x19" print of this image.

I've got two options:

1. Leave the sunset as it is (a muted orange gradient) but would leave the detail of the tree trunks that span the middle of the picture.

or

2. Digitally enhance the image to bring out the sunset with vibrant intensity, but this would eliminate the detail of the trees in the pricess, leaving only a black silhouette. (These trees are birch trees, hence their ability to be seen at all from the distance involved - I was 1/5th mile away from the trees.) Note, I tried enhancing only the skyline, but this created a slight glowing halo effect at the horizon line between sky and trees. Yuck. Very unnatural.

The below is a scanned 4x6" print of the image in question. Apparently, having confirmed the print with the unmodified scanned negative, Proex had indeed fiddled with the colors themselves and the birch trunks are barely visible. (And amusingly, the 4x6" print is grainy DESPITE using ISO 200 film. Even the scanned negative looked cleaner, though I used tools to clean it up even more so.)



Thx!

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Try a variety of things, and post them here, and we'll choose

I'd like to see the sky kicked up a notch AND the trees made visible. COuld be done in photoshop, though I imagine it would be very tedious.

[Deja Q]

2. I use Photoshop Elements 2.0 and Ulead PhotoImpact XL

The sky on the enhanced version is identical to the one in the pic above.

Ideally, having it all would be the best, in terms of paying attention to detail. But is it artistically the best? The actual detail level within the trees is a bit nondescript and are of varying shades of black. I fear such detail may be a detriment... But I do see both sides to the issue and I do want to get a pic with vibrance without sacrificing detail, just to say I can do it. Who knows, it might not be a detriment after all?

I will definitely keep working on it and put up some examples in the near future, showcasing both tree detail and vibrant sky... (though if the pic is too small, the details may be lost in the process anyway...) Thanks for your input!

However, I also did a mirror flip of the image. Looks better flipped for some reason...

[brokensymmetry]

3. Go with the sunset.

I played your small image and Photo-shop, and even with that, the sunset is absolutely spectacular!

Now, I haven't done this, since I'm not an advanced user...but, perhaps you are...might it be possible to create a second layer, and bring out the trees? And the first layer would, of course, bring out the sunset.

Then, perhaps you could digitally add the two?

[Deja Q]

4. Layering, of course!

I should have realized... the image is essentially in three bands: Sky, trees, frozen lake. I haven't really dabbled with layering on this level, but if layering as such works, it'll be a big time saver!

For this it would be easy. Especially as the remastered image is all silhouette. Placement of the new layer would be easy as pie!

I've already whipped out the master, unadultered file. Once the printing is done I need to resize it to match. (The scanned version is 1x.8" at 3200DPI. It's about 9 megapixels in size on its own. I resized the image to be 17x11" by 800 DPI (which turns the file from 33MB to 337MB!). While my printer prints at 2880 DPI, I've seen no real loss switching down to 800 DPI. It's amazing how much detail this new Epson scanner (Perfection 3170) picks up on negatives...) Once then, use the magic wand to capture only the woods and layer that on top of the sunset image! (Of course, the new layer would have to be improved as well; as it stands it's as dull as the rest of the picture and I'd have to apply the grain removal procedure as well to bring out the sharpness... it's extra work, but having a crisp sunset with crisp blue frozen lake with grainy dull trees will look silly...)


Thank you!

[HamstersFromHell]

6. Don't magic wand....use layer masks.

Magic wand will leave a hard edge that'll be hard to cover up. (The outline "halo" on the trees in this pic is from jpg compression artifacts, not masking.)

Here's what I did in about 10 minutes in Photoshop.




I duped the original pic 3times with adjustment layers.

Layer 1: (The first dupe, ends up on top) Saturation adjustment +20 (sunset)
Layer 2: Brightness adjustment +20 (trees) there's no detail in the trees in this photo, you'd have to do this to the original image. I did it just so you'd see a difference.
Layer 3: Brightness adjustment +61, contrast + 40 (the lake)

And of course, the original on the bottom.

All 3 adjustment layers are made to be layer masks, and then filled with black, then "painted" in white to bring out each area of adjustment.

I kinda "overdid" the lake so you'd see the differences.

Hope this helps!

[HamstersFromHell]

5. In photoshop it'd be easy

Duplicate the image onto a second layer, then make each an adjustment layer...one for saturation to punch up the sunset, another one either levels or brightness to bring out tree detail. Make the one on top a layer mask and then use the mask to cut the two together. Flatten image and you're all set.


On edit: spelling.

[NewHampster]

7. 5 minutes in PSP Pro

Send the biggy sometime and I'll bring out those trees better

[NewHampster]

8. and a little green brought out

[brokensymmetry]

9. Neat!

Thanks for the lesson! :-)

[Deja Q]

10. Wow!

The scanned negative looked just like that, though a bit cleaner...
I should do a 8x10 print and compare it to the 13x19 I hung up and see how they compare. I might re-do it...

Gonna finish the fireworks pics first though... they are sweet.