Restore an Old Photo Ep 106: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2012
- www.adorama.com
Adorama Photography TV Presents Take & Make Great Photos with Gavin Hoey. When it comes to restoring old and damaged photos a flatbed scanner isn't always the best option.
Join Gavin Hoey as he shows you an easy two light setup that's prefect for copying old photos. Then follow Gavin in to Photoshop CS6 where he'll edit the photo and show you the three essential tools of photo restoration.
Adorama Photography TV features talented hosts including: Mark Wallace, Gavin Hoey, Joe McNally, Joe DiMaggio, Tamara Lackey, Bryan Peterson, and Rich Harrington.
Related Products
Featured items from this episode
adr.ma/greatphotos006c
AdoramaTV related episodes
adr.ma/greatphotos006b
Learn More from the Adorama Learning Center
adr.ma/greatphotos006a
Canon 5D Mark 2
www.adorama.com/ICA5DM2.html?u...
Canon 24-105mm L f/4 IS
www.adorama.com/CA24105AFU.htm...
Manfrotto 055 Pro Tripod
www.adorama.com/BG055XPROB.htm...
Flashpoint two light kit
www.adorama.com/LTO2S.html?utm...
Canon remote release
www.adorama.com/CZDRXT.html?ut...
Adobe Photoshop Extended CS6 Image Editing Software
www.adorama.com/ABPSCS6M.html?...
www.adorama.com/ABPSECS6W.html...
Adobe Production Premium CS6 Software
www.adorama.com/ABPRPCS6M.html...
www.adorama.com/ABPRPCS6W.html...
Adobe Design Standard CS6 Software
www.adorama.com/ABDSCS6M.html?...
www.adorama.com/ABDSCS6W.html?...
If you have questions, share them with us at: adotv@adorama.com - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
Gavin Hoey is the Best on photographer on the net for the simply reason, he gets photography to a human level. Gavin makes it interesting, easy and fun.
Whether a scanner or photo taker matters not. It is great to see what works for each individual and what they are comfortable with.
Thanks for the effort of putting this together.
This is an old video of you in 2012. It is now August 25, 2022, Th. Very useful and explained clearly, compared to others.
Another sensationally useful video Gavin. Well done again and thanks for doing these.
Thanks Adorama.
Thanks so much Gavin, this video really helped me with restoring my aged photograph. The explanation was clear and simple to follow. Cheers mate!
I enjoygreat outdoors exploring nature, keep it onward!
I think i haz fallen in love with this brand. Adorama, we are going to go far!
Great and instructive videos, Gavin. Keep up the good work:)
Excellent tutorial! Thanks Gavin.
Thank you for uploading this video. It helped me a lot. Please continue uploading Photoshop Tutorials. Love from India
I always use "Healing Brush Tool". It's like a spot healing tool but with added precision of clone stamp tool. A combo that allows more control.
Thank you! Very helpful!
Great video, as always.
Great Video! Thanks for shareing, Gavin! :-)
Awesome! Thanks
He is the best!
Thank you SO much! I have an old picture of my mother I want to restore for her for her birthday!
im restoring some old pictures for my grandma, and i was wondering if i should scan the photo or take a picture of it. since the pictures are pretty glossy, i am suspect there might be some reflections and stuff.
Me too! This time I could not leave it without commenting about it.
I KNEW I wasn't the only one :)
That would be my question as well... However, I have recently watched a TED video about restoring photos in disaster-stricken Japan and I can see how being able to simply use your available gear to get the photo digitized could be really beneficial - scanners are bulky... another thing could be the ease of RAW manipulation to calibrate the image quickly...
Thank so much for your lovely video.
waht's the hardness % of your brush?
thnkx
Gavin- can you recommend a good lightstand and softbox like in your video for someone that is on a tight budget?
thank you so much.
Hi Gavin, did you say 'grey' card? For, I opine, the card appears white. Being new to DSLR, please explain more about the card as a help. I look forward to your reply, thanks and regards, Joe.
Adorama makes photography tutorial's ... it's more interesting in this way! Anybody can scan a picture!
Dear Gavin, Are you shooting the flashes on ETTL or Manual?
I have restored more than 2000 old family photos using a dslr instead of scanner 1. It is much faster 2. You can adjust the focus very accurately 3. You have a freedom of RAW format (color, shadows, highlights, wb, sharpness). I have produced amazing results with this technique and I would never substitute my work with a slow and clunky scanner.
I collect old negatives and I decided to buy an Epson Perfection V-850 ; I don't get how people I saw on internet got their results. They obtained super wide pictures with their negatives and I'm just getting the size of the negative but with a 1GB file size. Plus : you can't scan wide prints.
So for now I'm not quie satisfied with my pricy scanner...
Good job
How does the method of taking a picture differ from scanning at a very high resolution?
I know it’s late, but scanning is easier. The results should be the same. I think he’s doing it this way because it’s cheaper than buying a scanner, when you prob have a camera with lights already.
Hopefully Gavin will chime in, but speaking from my own experience. I found an old scrapbook and some pictures came off the page easily and I DID scan them. Other photos were so "stuck" I was afraid to try to pull them off the page as they seemed they might rip, so I took photos of those "stuck" pics. So it kinda depends on what you're dealing with. (at least for me it did)
Thanks for this tutorial
Sounds like you saw the same video I saw with Peter Krogh.
once I put the photo I want to restore in Photoshop and add a layer just like how you do it. I then select the layer and use the spot healing tooling on it, but it does not work. I made sure that the layer is not locked. Yet when i try to use tool, the dark highlight appears over the area but nothing happens. Please help.
very helpfull hank you
Hi guys I need an old photo restoring I'm having a tattoo of my grandad done but he said the image isn't clear enough anyways you can help out
Is there any way to get the original photo for which some part of the photo was actually erased.
A scanner is great for many things. However, for older photographs that have been folded or creased, a camera will have a much better outcome. Scanners have a very shallow depth-of-field making scanned photo not as sharp in areas where it wasn't pressed down tightly against the glass (in the case of folds, etc). I ran into this problem when scanning an older photo that had been glued to a cardboard backing many years ago.
Good question.Beacuse it's true.
With Matte/Lustre photos you can get terrible moire when scanning that can be hard (if not impossible, depending upon the photo) to remove without softening the scanned image too far.
I imagine doing it the Gavin has, gets around this issue.
hi gavin can u show us how u corrected the hair of the women from the photo?
Some sad people here very critical!! I think the videos most important msg is the actual photoshop side so weather he’s photocopied or not it’s a very good and informative video.. Cheers Gavin
because this is the way that is easiest for most people to do right away. Scanners are expensive, and most of us have a camera and Photoshop, and a window, for example, as a light source.
I suppose when using a scanner, there's no control over lighting, distortion, or detail...?
much higher resolution than conventional scanners. I myself has experience doing this
Great tutorial Gavin!
Oh... I've been holding my camera the WRONG way all those years...
Check out the guy at 13:22
Even if you scan a 1200 dpi from an A3 photo ?
who could dislike this?
Quite an introduction, is this a game show?
Why you didn't use a photo scanner?
what about using a scanner?
cuz its badass for a photograph
At the time of writing this post Mr Hoey's vid tut is nearly four years old. This overview of copying an aged photograph and digitally restoring it is not bad. However, in my opinion the final result lacks finesse. It is possible to do a better job using the same software at this time - or, doing Photoshop today - with or without third party filters designed for it.
Why not using a scanner ?
For the begining of the restoration after scanning... click here 05:10
Do you know about Photo Ultimate Kits? My pal said it\'s a life-changing tool it\'s got made him a photoshop legend very quickly. Look for it on google.
Not enough resolution to do all the editing!
2:00 I have a scanner for it. Lol
ï think it's because he shoots in RAW and he has much greater post production options. if you scan a image, you scan it in JPG or JPEG and the possibilities for editing the picture are poor.
Throw away your scaner and get the good one.
Good scaner has tons of adjustments and makes scans the way you want.
because it won't retain as much information as a DSLR sensor.
the scanner will not give a good lighting he will give flat image but using a camera with external light source will give a natural look
Yeah, go to 5:19. He says he's using a RAW file, and that's most likely because everything you do when editing a RAW file is non-destructive.
because a photograph has better quality and more pixels.
Scanner does not give u RAW files!
i knew him before... from photogavin
scanners dont produce the best quality...especially when the photo is a matte finish...it has lots of tiny bumps on the paper that show shadows when you scan it.
You could just use a photocopier, hence the name.
scanner.
with a scanner u cant really collect all the megapixels u need to clean details. the canon mark has a high megapixel. scanning will give a file of around 1mb or less = pixelate when u zoom. whiles u can get a good zoom for details when u take actual photo
i would have thought scanning is better
Excellent point!
jonesey65244
There really isn't a true RAW format for scanners.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong, could you?
If you scan a 4x6 photo at 1,200 pixels per inch, that would yield a picture the equivalent of a 34.5 MP camera. Was he using a Hasselblad medium-format camera? No. He's using a Canon 5D Mk II which is 21.1 MP. The scanner yields more pixels.
The CORRECT answer should have been:
"You use a camera because it is incredibly fast when compared to a scanner (especially when scanning lots of photos) and can yield RAW images for better processing."
Somebody get this guy a $40 all-in-one printer with a scanner. Just not Kodak because when printing B&W only it still uses color!
skip to 05:15. thank me later
I see the same errors made over-and-over in tutorials about rephotographing flat art. There's a fetish for using soft light / light boxes - fine I use them too when I'm feeling lazy, only properly. The location of the lights must be such that NONE of the light from the softbox enters at more than 45° or surface reflections can/will result, lowering contrast and detail. Don't believe me? Place an 8-12" flat mirror on your work surface - can you see the soft box? Oops. The top of the soft light should be no more 45° to the nearest edge of the copy art. Nothing wrong with using specular sources either, as long as your lighting is even - it's called a light meter. Using specular sources also allows you to use crossed polarizers to remove troublesome surface reflections, especially useful when shooting glossy and textured surfaces, such as silk finish photos, photos with silvering, or artwork done with impasto, acrylics, or heavy oils. Specular sources also reveal the most detail.
F-stop is usually chosen to be only 2-3 stops from full open, diffraction can be a problem at higher f-stops. If you have soft corners at 2-3 stops down, get a longer/better lens. To minimize problems, use a dedicated macro lens - again longer is better, that is a 90mm-150mm is better than a 50mm lens for copy work. Don't use a zoom, please.
Parallelism is required to prevent keystoning, prevent focus problems, and reduce post-processing time. A flat mirror with a white dot in the center is useful - read about it. Or get a 6-12" level. If your work surface isn't level, then your camera must also NOT be level but parallel to the art. Level your work surface!
Flatten your artwork / photo. If it's in an album, remove the page and flatten the page using small pieces of flat metal or wood placed an an inch or two from the edges of the photo - watch out for shadows, paint them flat black as well. Failing that a piece of thin glass can be placed over the photo to flatten it. Thinner (1-2mm) is better to reduce refractive distortion. Check your local framing shop for thin flat anti-reflective glass . If you're shooting curved glossy photos, one side of the glass should be anti-reflective or ANR, the other side should be polished - no texture. Place the anti-reflective surface against the glossy surface of the photo - this eliminates Moire and Newton rings. You'll thank me.
Use a large black mask around your art/photo to reduce glare, reflected light, and extraneous light from entering the lens, the lens shade only works for light outside the field of view. If you're shooing in a bright room, place a black card above the art between the art and the camera - cut a hole for the lens. You can also drape black fabric above the camera to minimize ceiling reflections - this is handy when using strobes - strobes find all the reflections.
Getting focus right can be a problem on low contrast art/photos. Have a long thin strip of paper with black text on hand to place on the photo while focusing.
Using a gray card, and exposure bracketing is good practice. If you're gong to combine them later using some sort of HDR software, make sure your camera and work surface are solid. Use a 2-sec delay to allow the art and camera to stop shaking. Don't rely on camera shake reduction. it only works on the camera, not the work surface.
Gently dust the surface of your photo, using a soft brush, and/or dust-free air.
That's all I got for now.
Sounds like you saw the same video I saw with Peter Krogh?
It`s а not good lesson !! I`m sorry, but it is very difficult filters for more accurate job
Nah .. don't buy it. 1) you can scan an image to the resolution image than your camera if you don't have a high end full frame camera 2) too much possibility of reflections 3) old photos are rarely completely flat, so some of the image is going to be out of plane, and you're gonna depend on DOF to compensate. Doesnt happen with a scanner.
Then you just have to find a piece of matt glass...
Why not use a good scanner instead?
why bother shooting that old photos with camera ? Wouldn't it be much easier, by just scan it with scanner machine, then edit it with photoshop?
Hi Wisnu Kumarajaya ! This is copy stand work which is a technique that's been done for a long time! It's good if you have a very reflective image that might reflect the light that a scanner uses. It's also much quicker if you're doing a lot of the same type of thing, just 'click' and copied, rather than having to swap out the photo, start the scan, wait for it, etc. But in the end, it's all about finding the results that work best for what you need. :)
+Wisnu Kumarajaya consider that one might not want to unmount the photo
yep
I would assume it’s more beneficial to shoot with a camera in raw and a flat color profile, so that you can manipulate the photo in post better.
such a fail, why didn't he scan the photo.... Sad! T^T
Sometimes, old pictures have texture. The light from the scanner makes it basically imposible to scan
Francisco La Torre
That's true to a point. Luckily, my scanner has the option to do customize scans. It just depends if you have a cheap scanner or one that is made for professional work. However, the photograph this guy has can be easily scanned less than a minute with 600 PPI or more. I tried using a camera in the past and it was very tedious. Thanks for sharing-
Not the best of Gavin's video but quite okay.
too mainstream
it's 'you' NOT 'u'. For fucks sake.
Grow up and show some respect, Mozaeus!!
Why you speak so much?
I want fast one for understand!
One thing is perfectly clear, Gavin is not your photo restoration go to guy. Personally I think this restoration was pretty poor and done to a very basic level.