Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Current fundraiser
Recent Posts
[Today at 01:18:46 AM]

[Yesterday at 08:49:30 PM]

[Yesterday at 01:57:57 PM]

[Yesterday at 01:53:35 PM]

[Yesterday at 10:33:03 AM]

[May 20, 2012, 06:22:31 PM]

[May 20, 2012, 03:39:23 PM]

[May 20, 2012, 04:18:56 AM]

[May 19, 2012, 11:24:05 PM]

[May 18, 2012, 10:26:46 PM]
OPR Theme-o-matic

Locations of visitors to this page
Total Members: 1577
New This Month: 6
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Memorial Day

Birthdays:
brianriley75 (37), alluringdeceit (23), Sonya K (38), PaulG (51), Pelican (58)

Events:
There are no events today.
Flower Girl

Bathtime

Mirada Perdida

Oh, Those Eyes!

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: USM 20 20 0  (Read 1883 times)
G3User
OPR Resident Expert
****
Offline Offline

Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 371



« on: January 05, 2008, 11:35:06 PM »


I am often tempted to add a bit of punch to repairs with USM 20 20(+/-) 0.
I was interested to hear Katrin Eismann suggest that older photos were more muted than we are used to today and for authenticity should be left that way.
What is the general feeling?
Do those doing the printing make that decision?

Athol
Logged
Ausimax
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Kogan, Australia
Posts: 1188



« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2008, 02:04:40 AM »

Hi Athol,

The rules state to not sharpen as that is done to suit the printing process, as is final colour correction.


Max
Logged

Wisdom is having a well considered opinion .... and being smart enough to keep it to yourself!     MJS

"Life" is what happens while you are planning other things!
G3User
OPR Resident Expert
****
Offline Offline

Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 371



« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2008, 06:00:08 AM »

Thanks Max,

Yes, I understand about not sharpening but USM used that way produces a contrast increase and can appear to lift the haze on an image. It has to be used with care as you can end up clipping hi and low lights but can be very effective
I suppose the question came from seeing returned images, including my own with significantly increased contrast and wondering if I should be aiming to re-create the original appearance or if not, how much "enhancement" to add.

Working my way through Restoration and Retouching, think it will become part of the five year plan!

Athol
Logged
Hannie
Board Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 3090



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2008, 06:28:02 AM »

Hi Athol,

I gave up on working my way through the book and now I use it just as a reference book.  It is great to work through some of her examples from time to time though.  I like restoring old photographs and your remark about the "muting" is very interesting and wonder if I should use it. 
Here is an example of what I mean, allthough the restored photo looks OK it may need some muting if the original was that way to begin with.  It almost seems like the restored photo looks too modern?
On the matter of USM, it is a destructive tool and what may look good on the screen may not look so good after printing?


Logged

Hannie Scheltema
Distribution Coordinator
hannie@operationphotorescue.org
schen
Site Admin
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 871



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2008, 06:54:18 AM »

I do agree of keeping the restored photo somewhat muted.  But I am biased because even for recent photos, I like them muted too.

Logged

Windows 7, Photoshop CS5
klassylady25
Guest
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2008, 10:11:33 AM »



Tried the inbetween side of things  without losing nor over doing the subjects.  OOoo that was fun!!   We're Not Worthy!  Thanks for the great discussion!
Logged
Hannie
Board Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 3090



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2008, 10:16:19 AM »

I like the results!

 I love it!

Hannie
Logged

Hannie Scheltema
Distribution Coordinator
hannie@operationphotorescue.org
Ratz
OPR Resident Expert
****
Offline Offline

Location: australia
Posts: 474



« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2008, 10:49:32 PM »

I love the look of those old muted photos,and they always seem to lose something when they are brought back to new condition.
Logged
cmpentecost
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2008, 11:10:43 PM »

Nice comparison Candy.  Shows what unsharp mask is capable of.  And, in these old photos, I agree the muted is better.  Technology wasn't available for the sharp, crisp images we see today.

Chris
Logged
G3User
OPR Resident Expert
****
Offline Offline

Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 371



« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2008, 11:37:07 PM »

What a great response, the example was excellent.

I have been using a digital camera and various versions of PS for some years. Mainly family photos and trips with some panoramas thrown in and we do have lots of bright light here.
Even so, I often add USM and though I am happy with the resulting prints, I suspect that I have been training myself to expect that sort of image.
Looks like most of the photos we are seeing for repair were taken on film and would have been softer/muted in comparison so I will restrain the urge in future

Thanks again for the input

Athol
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: