You might try duplicating the base layer, setting the copy layer to "Burn" and adjusting the opacity.
Not sure what you're going to use it for, but, if I may suggest, since you know the defect is there, no matter what you do, there may never be a time you don't immediately see the defect yourself. Very hard to not know and to not see what you already know and see. Other viewers, however, will most likely find interest in the primary content, the people's faces, and may never be concerned about or even notice "participants wearing mouldy clothes."
10-31-2019, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 10-31-2019, 01:32 PM by Tawe19.)
(10-31-2019, 12:16 PM)denzjos Wrote: Use : filters / G'Mic-Qt / Repair / Iain's Noise Reduction. Use the different sliders to optimise the picture
Hi Denzjos.
thanks for the quicj response.
using filters is new to me, and I'll have a go and come back to you.
thx
(10-31-2019, 12:26 PM)neurolurker Wrote: Tawe19, welcome to the forum.
You might try duplicating the base layer, setting the copy layer to "Burn" and adjusting the opacity.
Not sure what you're going to use it for, but, if I may suggest, since you know the defect is there, no matter what you do, there may never be a time you don't immediately see the defect yourself. Very hard to not know and to not see what you already know and see. Other viewers, however, will most likely find interest in the primary content, the people's faces, and may never be concerned about or even notice "participants wearing mouldy clothes."
Hi Neurolurker,
It is a family photo, so we'll only be using it within our family.
After a fire at the family home which destroyed all their photos, we are searching around for replacements, so it would be great if I could restore this one (and some others).
It is not disastrous as it stands, and even adds some 'patina' to the door behind the happy couple (the wife's grandparents).
Thank you for your suggestion which I will investigate further and get back yo you.
11-01-2019, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2019, 11:37 AM by Ofnuts.)
In the past I've restored a few family few. The larger the scan, how more detail one get to work with. You can go as far as you like. The question you had to ask is: do you want to reserve the old character of the photo or do you want to get a nearly new picture? I prefer the clone tool and the heal tool to get rid of dirt and spots. Whatever you do with the original, every time you change something on the original so pay attention you don't overdo. Example: is a spot on someone’s face or on an object real or is it dirt? Sometimes difficult.
11-01-2019, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2019, 01:02 PM by Tawe19.)
Hello, and thanks to everybody for their suggestions.
It was a pleasant learning experience investigating them. thanks.
Taking all into account, the best i've managed to do has been with a combination of heal + clone (+ blur + levels + sharpen).
In the end it has come out a lot better than i originally envisioned, and is now 'passable' within our family context.
I've attached a 13mb version (don't know if I can post the 73mb xcf version).
All comments welcome.
I now move on to another photo, which is of my grandmother in law. (I've attached the original scan just in case somebody has a new suggestion relevant to this particular one (it seems 'dirty').
Edit: just found out that the 13mb version is too large to attach, so i've compressed it with microsoft office picture manager (is there another way ?).
many thanks,
T
(10-31-2019, 05:04 PM)david Wrote: A very quick try using only the healing brush.
david.
thank you David, an excellent result.
I hope that you don't mind that I've downloaded it.
I think the photo of the face was surrounded with an ellips (it's usual on old pictures) so I think this would be a result if you try with blended ellips and then use the several tools to work on the face (a quick example):
