# Restoring old photos



## ColMac9090 (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm in the middle of a project to scan thousands of old images, some over 100 years old.

I've seen plenty of presets to make todays images look old, but none for the reverse.

Almost without exception every image needs major work to make it as acceptable as it can be. 

Has anyone seen any presets to help at least start me on the road to improving these. I am also looking at building my own, but just wondering if any exist already to at least minimise the workload.

I know there are thousands of different ways that may be needed, but it hasn't stopped people offering say B&W conversion presets of hugely varying capabilities.

Ta

Colin


----------



## nu2scene (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm not an expert at restoring, but I have been working on a few old photos as well. From what I gather so far, each image is different, and will need different techniques to fix. I don't think presets will be much help. Also I don't think I'd want to use LR to restore images. It's too limited. I mean the sliders will help, but you will need layers, and masks right off the bat. You'll need at least Elements if not Photoshop.


----------



## RikkFlohr (Sep 2, 2011)

ColMac9090 said:


> I've seen plenty of presets to make todays images look old, but none for the reverse.



That is a clue. Take a standard image that looks fine and mouse over the presets while viewing the preview in Navigator. When you find a look that matches (more or less) the photo that needs restoring, apply it to your standard image. Dissect the preset in Develop and attempt to make an opposite by sliding sliders and curves etc the other direction.  Each one of those 'old' looking presets should have a compliment that will negate it. Then you apply your opposite preset to your photo needing restoration and you will have a starting point.  That should do the initial heavy lifting before you go into a pixel-based editor for the real work.

I suspect a half dozen of these anti-old presets will take you a long way.


----------



## ColMac9090 (Sep 2, 2011)

Rikk & Rob

I think Rikk's idea is great. I also think that a few basic presets will get me started before I need to do detailed cleaning in Elements (I have PSE5) or Photoshop, where I have CS3. 

I do like the idea of reverse engineering a few of the "Aging" presets. I'd never have thought of that. Thanks


----------



## Effeegee (Sep 2, 2011)

*Restoring old photos - Scanning/Copy shot*

This might be too different form how you are working now but I've been looking at the benefits of LR and PS based on both scanning and copy shot originals from many sources including 100+ year old albums - most of which are a nightmare on a scanner.  There is an element of horses for courses as well as some philosophical aspects involved - facsimile or restoration? You can achieve both in LR with virtual (or actual) copies by the way. 

I like Rick's suggestion but I've not found develop module presets effective simply because originals can vary so much in type, size and condition.  That said a quick develop preset at import can give a very good first pass.  

Copy shots are 'required' where the original has 3D defects  - scratches, warping, tears, textured paper, inflexible spines etc. with cross polarising lighting where the original has to be held flat under glass or specular reflections are present. With tethered shooting it is much quicker and files are so much smaller than scanning. Careful copy shot detail can (generally) match or better the original as well as avoiding the need to go into TIFF - which cannot be easily converted to more compact formats other than JPEG. Sorting into 'categories' by subject and treatment can also give you some advantages in metadata entry. 

If scanning do everything in colour and concentrate on maximising the detail in a well spread histogram in the scanning software - which is where presets may help. Subject to the originals avoid any of the dust and scratch reducing options - LR's tools are generally superior and reversible. It is not essential to have a high resolution 16bit file because files are huge.  

Convert to black and white using HSL settings not the auto conversion and use split toning to control the final tonal range and tint - you might find a preset works here but for example playing with different colour levels in the yellow/orange and red levels can reduce water stains for instance.  The great advantage of LR remains non-destructive editing so it does not 'matter' if the first pass is wrong.  

Serious retouching/restoration will almost certainly require pixel editing in PS but this breaks the non-destructive editing philosophy (or PSE if you find an 8bit workflow works well enough in LR).  Personally I work hard to avoid pixel editing it slows workflow enormously and could be done later 'on demand'  but then I think the defects are part of the character of an old photograph.


----------



## ColMac9090 (Sep 2, 2011)

Hi Effeegee

Thanks for your detailed comments.

My workflow is not that far from what you are suggesting. My project is my immediate family's collection of images. I've already identified about 8,000 of them, and to date I've scanned about 1500 using a reasonable good quality HP scanner.

As you suggest, I'm working in 8 bit, and no manipulation from the scanner I have not however even looked at the histogram when scanning. Because of the size of many of the images (some as small as 1" square) I'm combining multiple images on the platen and scanning as is.

The reality is that I do not have the time to individually preview, and adjust the scans for each individual image. I will not get the project finished. Both my parents are well into their 90's, and I want them to be able to see the results of this activity, so I have to make some compromises (although I have to add that this was not a conscious compromise, as I never considered this as an option).

Anyway having scanned, I'm then Keywording (have you any idea how difficult it is to recognise yourself in a 50 year old faded B&W photo), adding location and caption info (some were in albums), then converting date data to try and show the original image date to the nearest year if poss.

After that I start on the editing, and I’m just debating the best way to do it.

As you suggested, a preset 





> ... can give a very good first pass ...


. and that was all I was hoping for. I fully expect to have to individually adjust almost every image. But I can group together similar looking images and apply presets in bulk.

Luckily, as a family project the philosophical arguments are pretty clear. We are interested in restoration, no debate.

I have scanned in colour, and it’s fascinating to see the range of sepias, browns, blues etc that have emerged so far. I think the idea of using HSL and split toning also sounds useful, so thanks there again.

I had hoped to minimise pixel editing, but where I do so, it will be on copies. I've already used virtual copies on a few favourites that have been done specially as they show long lost loved relatives, and I've maintained the originals. Where I've needed detailed editing, they've then been saved as psd's. I'm a firm believer that, for example content aware fill may help me in the future, even though I can't justify the spend now, by maintaining the originals, I have the option later on.

Colin


----------



## ColMac9090 (Sep 2, 2011)

I didn't understand your reference to Copy shots, but I've just read again, and understand what you meant.

So far everything I've come across has been fine for scanning - but I did start with the "Easy" albums! Approx 1200 of what I've scanned in so far are from post 1950, and relatively speaking, of good quality.

The oldest images about 35 of them (i've dated one at 1908) are on quite thick card with the photographer's name in the borders. So far they scanned quite well, but I might try shooting them tethered although I have no lighting I can use. But it will give me an idea of how they compare to the scans.

Colin


----------



## ernie (Sep 2, 2011)

If you can get lucky and get a nice bright but overcast day take them outside and shoot them there. You won't need lights. I did this once and it worked great. Plus, you have a raw image to start from.


----------

