Sunday, March 1, 2020

Baby Jane at One Year foto-fix

By Javier Garcia
The “foto-fix” marathon continues….  

Actually, the response for the free offer to enhance digital photos was not as overwhelming as anyone might imagine which works out if you view the bigger picture – pun intended.  The pun is in that when a photograph is placed on a flat-bed scanner the rule of thumb should be:  the smaller the size of photo, the higher setting for scan resolution preferred.  Most scanners are pre-set to scan at 300 dpi (dots per inch).  For a small wallet-size photo 300 dpi may not be enough but it is basically 300x the size of the original.  A basic scanner has a range of 72 dpi to 2400 dpi.  Most common office scanners are preset to 300 dpi.  
Simply, the smaller the photo the higher the setting should be when scanning your photo.  If you use a phone camera or digital camera to photograph the original then that is a whole different method which could be a topic for another post.

Don Kukowsky sent in several photos and was asked to resend the photos at a higher resolution if he expected good  results.  The following is an example of a low-res image.  

60.2 kb size image]  
At 60.2 kb (kilobyte is a small measure of file size) the copy of the original photo lacks a good solid basis to begin with so the results of “foto-fix” can be expected to substandard.  So when I download a photo and magnify it 300-500x  to view it, it can be discouraging to see a lot of pixels (squares of color) rather than a smoother rendering of the original.
Mr Kukovsky was asked to resend the photo at a higher resolution to which he gladly complied but the image was only slightly larger at 128 kb.   
 
128 kb size image]  
I feigned some small measure of satisfaction with Mr Kukowsky’s second attempt because he was really trying and I really wanted to accept the challenge.  I reiterate that a much higher scan would create a larger file which might exceed  1MB (a single megabyte is 1000 kilobytes):  It’s still a very small but reasonable enough file size to work with.
If none of this is making sense to the reader I apologize.  I will offer suggestions at the conclusion of this blog post for those without access to a flat-bed scanner or skill with a hand-held camera device.
 
 The final result
Here is the final result which I stress would probably look much better if it, for example had been scanned on a flat-bed scanner at 600-800 dpi.  A magnified view reveals something interesting about the photo.  It appears to be a hand-tinted (colored) photo from the late 1950’s – early 1960s.  These can be particularly challenging to “foto-fix” due to the original’s rough textured surface which is also another topic for another discussion about the work.
By the way these are not professionally done.  That is, I do not accept payment and I utilize an outdated Photoshop Elements 12 program but have years of experience doing these so that might in itself compensate for the lack of the bigger / better software version.  If you send a digitized photo, please do not offer payment – the challenge of the work and your satisfaction are payment enough.  There are many other people with much greater skills than I who also do this as a free service which can be found on Facebook.  I enjoyed the practice there but find it more personally satisfying to offer this service to people from our community. 

The background was really all that was needed for a “foto-fix” which made this simple since most people pay more attention to the main subject.  Also, the most difficult problems arise when a photo has a nasty scratch or tear over the lips or nose of a subject.  If a pseudo background had been created to replace the original than it would lose much more of its true form.  Most importantly, it would look contrived and obtrusive enough to distract from the main subject – the baby’s face.  

Auto-sharpened image looks grainy instead of sharper.]
Not being satisfied with the result, I attempted to utilize the software quick-fix tool “Enhance / Auto Sharpen” but it did not improve the photo so I returned to the previous version and touched it up.  

To friends on the Brownsville Station Facebook page (for Brownsville, Texas vintage photos – not the ‘70’s rock band from which the name is borrowed) who want to submit a treasured photo in hopes that it can printed, framed and shared with your family, you are most welcomed to send a photo to Ocelot7773@gmail.com under these conditions:
1) Be a member of the Brownsville [Texas] Station Facebook page or regular visitor of this blog.  You don’t have to be a Brownsville native; neither does the content/ subject in your photo have to be in or from Brownsville, Texas.
2) Send a high-res scan of your image – the smaller the photograph – the higher setting on your scanner = best results.
3) Only one photo per person at a time.  I’ll let you know if I will or will not attempt to enhance the digitized photograph.

If you do not have access to a good quality flat-bed scanner maybe you can ask someone who has a simple office printer/scanner to help you and set the resolution at its highest setting.  If they do not know how to change settings or check their user’s manual that’s okay.  A basic office scanner will automatically save a file at 300 dpi in pdf format but jpeg is preferred and tif is even more desirable.  If that does not make sense to you or the person scanning for you no worries – you’re still on the right track.

Your local library may have a scanner for public use.  Check with them.  They should be happy to assist.  There are more ways so if you can figure something out great!
One person sent a digitized photo of a photo he took with his camera phone [JD Lopez] and was happy with the results.  Another person made a similar attempt but the image was 1) too blurry and 2) beneath convex glass which reflected too much light so it was refused.  

 Photographed with phone 
Low-res Image
To anyone viewing this post thank you for your interest and please do us all a favor:  Don’t share this with your friends unless they are from our hometown of Brownsville, Texas.

No comments:

Post a Comment