USM 20 20 0

[G3User]

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

[Ausimax]

Hi Athol,

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


Max

[G3User]

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

[Hannie]

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?

[schen]

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

[klassylady25]

Tried the inbetween side of things  without losing nor over doing the subjects.  OOoo that was fun!!     Thanks for the great discussion!

[Hannie]

I like the results!

 

Hannie

[Ratz]

I love the look of those old muted photos,and they always seem to lose something when they are brought back to new condition.

[cmpentecost]

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

[G3User]

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