2018 Project 52, 1st quarter by Sandy (skitterbug)

[skitterbug]

Hi Joe - I am going to give this "portrait" type of photography more tries. What I am currently waiting on is a white balance card to see if that helps. I have an idea about how I want to try to light the situation too. Hopefully by the end of this week, I'll have my "homework" done!

Thanks for commenting! I appreciate it!

[skitterbug]

Week 8 - nearly over! It rained nearly every day this week. It is very wet and still too cold and muddy to be "playing" outside.

The white balance card arrived so I gave it a try hoping that I understand how to use it. I took a shot of it before taking the picture(s) of my intended target. Then in post-processing, I used it for "white balance" saving the settings for that shot and then applying the settings to the photo I have posted below. Is that the right technique?

I'm still working on the "oldies" and this is another charcoal. My relative is beautiful and I sure wish I knew who she was. To anyone reading this post, make sure you get as much history about your family as you can before you lose your resources to life eternal. If you care about family history, that is. I do now....... <huge sigh>

Back to my attempts to have the white balance correct for this photo - as well as sharpness and proper lighting. I believe I am going to need to invest in some proper lighting gear eventually. Suggestions are welcome!

The settings that I used I chose manually, making adjustments based on the exposure meter in my camera.
1/10ss - f/3.2 - ISO100

[Urbanflyer]

Sandy--is your goal to produce a photo that looks like the original or a "restored" version of the photo? I have two comments on this last one:
1. The black point could be darker to good advantage.
2, Sharpening will make this photo live.

As far as your use of gray card, I will let others jump in on that. When I shot film I would use a gray card to get the basic settings in the light I had, but do not much use one now--both because of a backlog of experience and because I can make significant adjustments in post if needed. Auto settings on a good camera are usually really good.

In terms of lighting, I used to copy photos with a photo stand--two lights positioned above and on either side of the photo holder. Their positions could be adjusted independently. Now I generally use a good scanner set at a high resolution.

I will try to send you a pm with my version of your lovely lady.

[skitterbug]

Sandy--is your goal to produce a photo that looks like the original or a "restored" version of the photo? I have two comments on this last one:
1. The black point could be darker to good advantage.
2, Sharpening will make this photo live.

As far as your use of gray card, I will let others jump in on that. When I shot film I would use a gray card to get the basic settings in the light I had, but do not much use one now--both because of a backlog of experience and because I can make significant adjustments in post if needed. Auto settings on a good camera are usually really good.

In terms of lighting, I used to copy photos with a photo stand--two lights positioned above and on either side of the photo holder. Their positions could be adjusted independently. Now I generally use a good scanner set at a high resolution.

I will try to send you a pm with my version of your lovely lady.

Mostly, I am trying to recreate the original photo - in this case a charcoal as well as "fixing" up any damage that may have happened to it. There is still some of it in her blouse, for instance.

You mentioned scanning, in this case this one as well as several others are entirely too large for my scanner (Epson V600Photo). So this is the reason for the capture with digital.

I did try sharpening a bit but I found that my attempts made her look more grainy than I wanted. As for the adjustment of the photo for black points, etc. I didn't do very much with that because I was trying to keep it as original as possible but still make a good presentation. I'll be interested in seeing what you have done!

I used two lights - one on either side and then I also turned on the overhead light that is situated in the middle of our ceiling and not directly overhead of the place where I set the picture. Can't say that I've much experience. It is an adventure in lights!

I decided to use the white balance card based on the reactions I've received from the flower pics that I've posted. I consider my camera to be decent but I reckon WB is something that can be fickle. I am hoping to rectify that problem.

Thanks for posting a reply. I'll take a look at your message!

[skitterbug]

Me again Judith! Yep, the adjustment does make the picture a bit more crisp but it also seems to bring out the damage a bit more than I like. I think somewhere between my pic and yours will make a nice balance.

Thanks for your help!

[Cantab]

Sandy, I have a couple of comments.

You described the lights you're currently using. Are they all the same colour temperature? If they're not, that would make it very difficult (impossible?) to obtain accurate colour rendition in all areas of the image.

When you took a shot of the white balance card, did you use precisely the same lighting as for the actual image (and perhaps with the card resting against the drawing)?

The photo you posted looks good as far as I can tell without having seen the original.

[Wavelength]

Well done Sandy; i feel the time and space then

[Geoff F]

That looks good to me, Sandy.

With these old photographs etc it is often worth doing two versions, one exactly as the source image appears now plus an 'improved version'.

Attempting to restore to original condition is tricky because it can be difficult to assess the amount of time fading. Very old images, say 1860 to 1890, were often a rather pale yellowish tint; then, later images became more of a darkish brown with more contrast. After which they gradually became more of a greyish tone which could be quite pale or with more contrast.

When there is a bit of persistent noise in the shadows I often make two copies from the original Raw image, or create a duplicate image when working from the edit window, and give one image more noise reduction than the other. The two edits can then be gradually merged with masks.

Noise reduction can add a bit of softness but by gradually doing it this way you can keep areas like faces quite sharp but allow some of the noisy shadows to blur a fraction. Often, you only need to introduce a fairly low opacity bit of the masked image, with a soft brush, to make a considerable reduction to the noise effect without overdoing any softness.

[skitterbug]

Sandy, I have a couple of comments.

You described the lights you're currently using. Are they all the same colour temperature? If they're not, that would make it very difficult (impossible?) to obtain accurate colour rendition in all areas of the image.

When you took a shot of the white balance card, did you use precisely the same lighting as for the actual image (and perhaps with the card resting against the drawing)?

The photo you posted looks good as far as I can tell without having seen the original.

Actually, I must confess that the light bulbs are all different. The overhead and the one lamp have filament bulbs yet and the third is a fluorescent bulb but they are all 100W. So something to consider for sure.

Yes, to your question about the WB card. Same lighting and card resting against the drawing for first pic.

I'm glad you liked the photo! Thanks for your thoughts!

[skitterbug]

Well done Sandy; i feel the time and space then

I can't imagine what it might have been like in her era. I think back to my beginning years on this earth and marvel how different it is for me!
I'm glad you like the picture! And I appreciate your views always!

[skitterbug]

That looks good to me, Sandy.

With these old photographs etc it is often worth doing two versions, one exactly as the source image appears now plus an 'improved version'.

Attempting to restore to original condition is tricky because it can be difficult to assess the amount of time fading. Very old images, say 1860 to 1890, were often a rather pale yellowish tint; then, later images became more of a darkish brown with more contrast. After which they gradually became more of a greyish tone which could be quite pale or with more contrast.

When there is a bit of persistent noise in the shadows I often make two copies from the original Raw image, or create a duplicate image when working from the edit window, and give one image more noise reduction than the other. The two edits can then be gradually merged with masks.

Noise reduction can add a bit of softness but by gradually doing it this way you can keep areas like faces quite sharp but allow some of the noisy shadows to blur a fraction. Often, you only need to introduce a fairly low opacity bit of the masked image, with a soft brush, to make a considerable reduction to the noise effect without overdoing any softness.

Your suggestions are definitely appreciated! I have EX Hard drives for my storage areas so having two photo files of these old keepers is a great idea. I suppose I've already have done this without realizing it because I always save my original RAW file and then import it into my editor and re-save it with another file name when I work on them. But it is worth remembering that it may be a benefit to keep the two together for review!

Also I didn't know that different points in time meant different tints to the photos. I don't have very many of the really old ones (Over 100 years) but I can watch for this variation.

About your suggestions for editing, I will have to do a bit of studying to see how I can accomplish this in my photo editor. I like what you are doing though and feel it will be worthwhile for me to learn!

I am glad that you like the results for this one and I appreciate your suggestions for improvement in technique, etc.

Thank you!

[skitterbug]

Week 9 - We have a break from the rain and the cold so with sunshine being inviting, I ventured outside. Muddy conditions but worth being outside anyway. My old photo project will have to wait while I enjoy spring like conditions!

I was surprised to see a few violas struggling. They have been beaten up by the heavy rain so they are not in mint condition. I wanted to use the WB card and see if I could get the purple to be more accurate. The group will have to say whether I am close or not. I thought this first pic turned out fairly accurately! I also used it for the Witch Hazel shot.

I played with the 7D Mark II and used the EF 100mm 1.2 Lens with a hood in place to see what it might do. Handheld for both photos.

Viola (or we call them Johnny-Jump-Ups). Settings used: 1/60ss - f/3.2 - ISO100



This next photo maybe isn't quite as sharp as I might have liked. I don't know if I moved or what but none of the series that I took was quite what I wanted. I'll show it though because it is a pleasing sign of spring! It is also the first year for this plant that we put in place in memory of someone dear that we lost tragically. I am surprised to see it blooming already after it's first year!

Witch Hazel
1/100ss - f/5.6 - ISO100

[Geoff F]

These work OK.

Some pansies (viola) can have remarkable 'faces' with each variation appearing to have a different temperament. Some are smiling while others look very stern and grumpy.

With the Witch Hazel, it looks as though you have focused on the closest parts but didn't have enough focus depth to have the whole scene in focus. Probably another of those situations which require a merge of several focus points.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - I think when I was snapping pics of the witch hazel, I hadn't really made up my mind what I wanted. Mostly, I was after the crazy looking blossoms that it has and not worrying about the branches. After the fact, it probably would have been better to do as you mentioned, increase the DOF and include a bit more of the background - or do a merge.

Pansies do have a tenancy to have faces while I think that these smaller violas have stripes or are just colors blended. At least the ones that I have are that way. I don't have any of the larger pansies growing or blooming yet. I have some started and growing in the basement of our home (tiny greenhouse area) to be planted as soon as they are large enough! The violas seem hardier but maybe they simply reseed themselves easier.

So I will assume that the white balance card kept the purple colors true/reasonable? If so, then it is worth the extra effort!

Thanks for the comments!

[rudi]

Week 9: pictures are looking good Sandy.
Pancy: WB seems ok to me. Perhaps I would have chosen a faster shutter speed, to rule out some motion; and a smaller aperture, to get a bit more depth off field.
I would also be tempted to crop a little bit more.
But YMMV.

Witch Hazel are very slow growers, but usually flowers as a very young plant. It was on my list for this week, but due to the colder temp (-7°C at night) it doesn't look very nice right now...

[skitterbug]

Thanks Rudi for adding your helpful observations. If I had chosen a bit more DOF then the shutter speed probably would have been a bit quicker. Also I probably could have increased the ISO to 200 since this camera seems to a good job regarding grain in pics. Mostly though I was after the experience of the white balance card and how the colors would appear after the fact. You've confirmed that I am on the right track in that! And yep, I do agree about the crop. Bit off the top and left side probably would make a difference in the presentation!

I am happy that our Witch Hazel made it through our winter months as a first year planting and I'm looking forward to having it for many years! Its flowers smells delightful as well!

Thanks for your reply!

[Cantab]

Sandy, I've now looked at the viola on my destktop's calibrated and profiled monitor (although it is time for it to be redone). I agree with Rudi on WB; as far as I can tell it looks good.

[Manfred M]

Sandy - I just had a quick look at some of the old photos that you have reproduced.

The yellow colour that we see are due to improper washing during the development stage and the chemical residues have attacked the lignin and cellulose fibers in the paper and have yellowed them. They did not start out that way and were more likely a slightly warm-white that is typical of current papers that do not contain optical brighteners. This chemical attack has a second negative issue as it has destroyed the tonal range of the original image; the whites have gone yellow and the blacks have faded as well. There are also signs of some minor mechanical damage to the emulsion.

Some standard photographic retouching techniques can restore these images to something closer to what they originally looked like.

[skitterbug]

Hi Manfred - I like the work you did on this one and I believe Judith was headed in this general direction as well. She'd emailed me her work on it.
I am a puzzled though because the two (boy and lady in the chair) look like charcoal work to me. I have to be very careful handling them because the pigment will rub off on my fingers if I get sloppy about it. So I'd sooner say they are not photos? but art work. There is some writing on the back of the lady's portrait but it is faded enough that I haven't made out yet what it might be. However from the little I did discern, it looks like it was done in Dayton Ohio.

Back to my puzzlement - I believe it is artwork done in some sort of chalk but then things like the eyes and the chain, etc are crisp enough that I'd think it would be hard to do this in hand done art. So from your description about photo development, is there a process that this was taken via "camera" and then applied to the heavy cardboard like backing and the results is a photo that looks like it was done in charcoal? (Where are the relatives when they are needed!!!! History - so important here)

Yes, I'm confused for sure! (Nothing new about that...)

Thanks for taking an interest in my project(s).

[skitterbug]

Sandy, I've now looked at the viola on my destktop's calibrated and profiled monitor (although it is time for it to be redone). I agree with Rudi on WB; as far as I can tell it looks good.

Thank you Bruce! I appreciate that you took time to check out my viola against your desktop's calibrated color profile. And I am relieved that perhaps I have a better understanding about white balance! Bring on spring and blooming flowers so I can practice some more!