• Land's End Photo

    From Tony Cooper@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 10 19:33:04 2022
    David Brooks wrote:

    This one is rather worse for wear! I can't recall how it got into such
    a
    state! https://ibb.co/2F0zNVp


    Couldn't help taking a crack at it. I cleaned up the sky and brought
    in a little color in the sky. The sky shouldn't compete with the
    figures, so I went for just a little color. Cloned out a number of
    problems in the figures, but didn't work on the faces. Too little to
    work with.

    Cleaned up the yellow in the sign. Ran it through a High Pass
    filter/Overlay. Removed the "annotation" because viewers don't care
    what was done.

    Anytime you're working with scans of old photos, the quality of the
    finished job will depend on the quality of the scan. This was a poor
    scan to begin with.

    This is my effort at repair:

    https://folio.ink/dbzQAR
    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

    I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

    I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue May 10 19:51:28 2022
    In article <[email protected]>, Tony Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:

    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

    I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

    I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

    fix your newsreader. fix your newsreader.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Taylor@21:1/5 to Tony Cooper on Wed May 11 06:52:28 2022
    On 11/05/2022 00:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
    This is my effort at repair:

    https://folio.ink/dbzQAR

    It's a pity that the repaired photo is so much smaller than the original, and has lost significant detail as a result. Otherwise, very nice.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brooks@21:1/5 to Tony Cooper on Wed May 11 23:20:10 2022
    On 11/05/2022 00:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
    David Brooks wrote:

    This one is rather worse for wear! I can't recall how it got into such
    a
    state! https://ibb.co/2F0zNVp


    Couldn't help taking a crack at it. I cleaned up the sky and brought
    in a little color in the sky. The sky shouldn't compete with the
    figures, so I went for just a little color. Cloned out a number of
    problems in the figures, but didn't work on the faces. Too little to
    work with.

    Cleaned up the yellow in the sign. Ran it through a High Pass filter/Overlay. Removed the "annotation" because viewers don't care
    what was done.

    Anytime you're working with scans of old photos, the quality of the
    finished job will depend on the quality of the scan. This was a poor
    scan to begin with.

    This is my effort at repair:

    https://folio.ink/dbzQAR

    You are a bit of a star, Tony! ⭐️

    Very many thanks. :-D

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony Cooper@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed May 11 23:52:09 2022
    On Wed, 11 May 2022 23:20:10 +0100, David Brooks
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 11/05/2022 00:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
    David Brooks wrote:

    This one is rather worse for wear! I can't recall how it got into such
    a
    state! https://ibb.co/2F0zNVp


    Couldn't help taking a crack at it. I cleaned up the sky and brought
    in a little color in the sky. The sky shouldn't compete with the
    figures, so I went for just a little color. Cloned out a number of
    problems in the figures, but didn't work on the faces. Too little to
    work with.

    Cleaned up the yellow in the sign. Ran it through a High Pass
    filter/Overlay. Removed the "annotation" because viewers don't care
    what was done.

    Anytime you're working with scans of old photos, the quality of the
    finished job will depend on the quality of the scan. This was a poor
    scan to begin with.

    This is my effort at repair:

    https://folio.ink/dbzQAR

    You are a bit of a star, Tony! ??

    Very many thanks. :-D

    I didn't pay attention to the size, and the image I downloaded is only
    567 x 800 at 72 ppi. That's OK for web viewing, but if you want it at
    4" x 6" at 300 ppi for printing if that's the desired use here it is:

    https://folio.ink/WjnN7m



    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

    I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Taylor@21:1/5 to Tony Cooper on Thu May 12 10:00:02 2022
    On 12/05/2022 04:52, Tony Cooper wrote:
    I didn't pay attention to the size, and the image I downloaded is only
    567 x 800 at 72 ppi. That's OK for web viewing, but if you want it at
    4" x 6" at 300 ppi for printing if that's the desired use here it is:

    https://folio.ink/WjnN7m

    Thanks, Tony.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brooks@21:1/5 to Tony Cooper on Thu May 12 15:54:20 2022
    On 12/05/2022 04:52, Tony Cooper wrote:
    On Wed, 11 May 2022 23:20:10 +0100, David Brooks
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 11/05/2022 00:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
    David Brooks wrote:

    This one is rather worse for wear! I can't recall how it got into such
    a
    state! https://ibb.co/2F0zNVp


    Couldn't help taking a crack at it. I cleaned up the sky and brought
    in a little color in the sky. The sky shouldn't compete with the
    figures, so I went for just a little color. Cloned out a number of
    problems in the figures, but didn't work on the faces. Too little to
    work with.

    Cleaned up the yellow in the sign. Ran it through a High Pass
    filter/Overlay. Removed the "annotation" because viewers don't care
    what was done.

    Anytime you're working with scans of old photos, the quality of the
    finished job will depend on the quality of the scan. This was a poor
    scan to begin with.

    This is my effort at repair:

    https://folio.ink/dbzQAR

    You are a bit of a star, Tony! ??

    Very many thanks. :-D

    I didn't pay attention to the size, and the image I downloaded is only
    567 x 800 at 72 ppi. That's OK for web viewing, but if you want it at
    4" x 6" at 300 ppi for printing if that's the desired use here it is:

    https://folio.ink/WjnN7m

    That's very kind.

    Thank you, Tony. 🙂

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Magani@21:1/5 to David Taylor on Fri May 13 16:39:58 2022
    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 7:00:09 pm UTC+10, David Taylor wrote:
    On 12/05/2022 04:52, Tony Cooper wrote:
    I didn't pay attention to the size, and the image I downloaded is only
    567 x 800 at 72 ppi. That's OK for web viewing, but if you want it at
    4" x 6" at 300 ppi for printing if that's the desired use here it is:

    https://folio.ink/WjnN7m
    Thanks, Tony.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

    I've had a modicum of success enlarging small photos with Topaz Labs' Gigapixel-AI. Might be worth a look if you want it bigger without it going all pixilated? I believe they have a free trial but I'm not sure what restrictions they have on that
    version.

    Disclaimer: No connection; just a happy user. Also, the blurb implies miracles, but the results are still not too bad.

    Cheers,
    Magani

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)