Continuing the theme of the photo restorations, Here is another one from my families history. This time its my grandma and granddad's wedding. Considering when this photo was taken, its a brilliant photo, I don't know much about when it was taken, but I'll try and find out as much as I can about it and add it in later. From what I can gather from my dad, My grandfather worked for a building firm called Carr's? although usually when we talk about family history we're in the pub, so the combination of my dad being drunk telling and stories, and me being drunk listening doesn't help me at all. I believe that Carr's was based in Morpeth,but I could be very wrong here, and my granddad was a foreman? After this photo, Jimmy and Phyllis went on to have three sons a daughter and at least one yorkshire terrier, John, Eric, David and Pat, John being my father (and I cant remember what the yorkshire terrier was called!).  

Jimmy and Phyllis Sutherland's wedding

Jimmy and Phyllis Sutherland's wedding

I'm editing this photo on photoshop CS4, scanned in using a pretty low res scanner, canoscan lide 100, which is the only scanner I can get a hold of at the moment.

To start with, I thought this one looked pretty simple, but as I go into it it turned out that it was a little more complicated.

Firstly, the big fold down across the legs didn't appear to scan properly, so that the lower section was slightly underexposed. this should have been a simple correction of the levels, but it turned out to be a little more complicated than that, as the legs themselves seemed to be more effected than the background. I ended up having to cut the legs out individually, and correct their levels individually, the left leg  (as we look at it) was even taken into two sections, which made it easier to correct the exposure. Once I got the legs exposed correctly (or at least what looks right to me), I then merged the layers, then used the smudge tool to smudge the rough edge, then, over this used the clone tool to make the blurred edge less noticeable. When I zoomed into this image, It was very very dirty, lots of dust and scratches covering the whole image, which can only be expected in an image this old, the healing brush was used in most circumstances to get rid of the tiny scratches, set to a very small brush, and clicking on them individually to get the best results on the larger areas. With some of the scratches they were to close to an edge to use the healing brush (the healing brush really hates edges!) so the clone tool was used in these situations. I think it was the techniques of the time, (although im not entirely sure), but photos taken around the time this photo was taken (again, i will find out but im taking a punt and saying its around 1934), have a very soft focus, so i sharpened the image using the unsharpen mask tool, which did a fantastic job on the background, but not so much on the figures in the image. The image still looks better, but the quality of the sharpen wasn't as great on the "important" bits as it was on the background. I also played with the contrast a lot to get the look right, with some work with the dodge and burn tools too. I usually hardly ever use the dodge and burn tools but with restoring photos in black and white I have found them to be really helpful. More than anything, this image was more time consuming than technically difficult (for the most part), with lots of scratches to get rid of. the faces were luckily quite undamaged, unfortunately my granddads face had quite a big scratch that went right through the corner f the eye, possibly the worst place it could be, as I had no reference points to repair from, so I pretty much had to guess, and use the other eye as a guide. i did the best job I could, but a pro could probably have done a better job (or even just a better scan, so i could get in closer) Grandma's face had a bit of damage to the brim of the hat and face, this wasn't too difficult to get rid of using the clone tool, which made short work of the damage. While most of the image was in focus, the trails from the flowers seem to be double exposed, not really out of focus/blurry, but more they were exposed correctly, then must have moved, and been exposed again, this usually happens either when a flash has been used with an exposure that is longer than necessary , or when the film hasn't been wound on, however, that's probably not the case here, as I would have assumed that then the whole image would have been double exposed, either that or they stood really really still!! I could have sat for hours and tried to tidy up the flower trails, but I would probably have just got angry, and ruined the photo, so for the sake of my sanity, I've left them be. I don't think that it really detracts from the overall image anyway. Here is the finished image.
Jimmy and Phyllis Sutherland - edited

Jimmy and Phyllis Sutherland - edited

Thanks for looking. Chris

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.