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

[Manfred M]

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).

To me the boy looks like a drawing; the lines and shading do not look at all photographic. The woman, on the other hand, looks like an old photo.

There is nothing to say that the woman might be mixed media, with a photographic base and hand colouring on top. This technique was definitely used in early colourization and there is nothing to suggest that could not be the case here. Without access to the original, I would just be guessing, but the details in the woman's image suggest that this is definitely a photo. The problem is that there were a number of different techniques used to make and print these images, so quality control / consistency were simply not the order of the day.

[skitterbug]

To me the boy looks like a drawing; the lines and shading do not look at all photographic. The woman, on the other hand, looks like an old photo.

There is nothing to say that the woman might be mixed media, with a photographic base and hand colouring on top. This technique was definitely used in early colourization and there is nothing to suggest that could not be the case here. Without access to the original, I would just be guessing, but the details in the woman's image suggest that this is definitely a photo. The problem is that there were a number of different techniques used to make and print these images, so quality control / consistency were simply not the order of the day.

Hi Manfred - After I replied to your earlier post, I went on the information filled (sometimes it is) world wide web and did a bit of reading. I am in agreement with you about the woman's photo. It surely has to have been "mechanically produced" with camera gear and then processed in whatever manner was chosen by the photographer. And given that the little boy is also on the same type of paper and has the same type of coloring, I have a feeling he was done the same way. My older sis thinks that this is Mother and son so maybe it was actually done at the same time.

But with all of that, I really do like how you post processed her pic! It is well done and gives me more ideas to strive toward! Thank you!

[skitterbug]

Call this Week 9.5 We had lots and lots of rain so once again, I headed to my indoor project of recording old photos that are too big to scan, by using my digital camera.

The setting used to take this one are ISO100 - f/5.0 - 1/13ss

I'm going to post my original shot first.

#1 Original baby photo



And now my effort trying to correct damage areas and restore some semblance of clarity. I'll confess that I do not totally understand what sort of post processing ought to be made to photos like this one. I liked Manfred's restoration of "my lady" but this one seems like the photographer decided to add color to his work? So hopefully, someone can direct me regarding the "how to do it" phase of color correction.

As always, thank you to those who offer opinions or suggestions! All are definitely appreciated!

#2 - My try post processing the Baby photo

[Geoff F]

Your clone work has come out well there, Sandy, but have you slightly overdone the shadow darkening?

Some early photographers did quite a bit of very careful colour retouching of their prints and with some postcards of local scenes etc they could get a bit carried away with their use of bright colours.

[Wavelength]

You are really doing well in your new theme..... congrats!!!

[Cantab]

Sandy, I'm following this thread with interest. In your most recent photo edit, my sense is that the post processed version has a pronounced green/blue tinge. Is that what you were hoping to achieve?

[skitterbug]

You are really doing well in your new theme..... congrats!!!

Thank you very much Nandakumar! It is enjoyable seeing family members even if I don't know exactly how they all fit into my "history". I'm still digging for answers!

[skitterbug]

Your clone work has come out well there, Sandy, but have you slightly overdone the shadow darkening?

Some early photographers did quite a bit of very careful colour retouching of their prints and with some postcards of local scenes etc they could get a bit carried away with their use of bright colours.

Hi Geoff - I do agree that cloning has become much easier for me! and I also agree that I have not post edited this picture as well as I would like. It needs more work!
Thank you for commenting!

[skitterbug]

Sandy, I'm following this thread with interest. In your most recent photo edit, my sense is that the post processed version has a pronounced green/blue tinge. Is that what you were hoping to achieve?

Hi Bruce - Trying to preserve the pictures that I have of my ancestors has become a bit of a passion. What I hope to do eventually, is compile them into a "scrap book" to pass along to the family. Even if we don't know for sure who everyone is, we do know that they are the early part of the family!

I don't really like the way the post processing for the Baby photo turned out. The more I look at it, the more I know I need to start over. Cloning is decent but the treatment of the shades and yes, that green/blue tinge need help! My skill in this area of PP is lacking and needs more work!

I understand a lot of techniques now of Affinity Photo but how to apply these techniques is still a bit frustrating because I don't understand completely what each of the tool is supposed to be used for. So more learning and work with this application is needed!

I appreciate that you are checking out my photo work! Thank you always for your comments!

[skitterbug]

There seems to be a few different ways to rid a picture of problem colors. I haven't settled to any of them yet. I envy people who have had "dark room" experience so the terms of the explanations come easy to them.

I'm going to call this my effort for week 10 and hope that it appeals to the photo group. Pound on me with any suggestions or improvement ideas. I appreciate added help and information and offer thanks for it.

[Geoff F]

I would suggest, Sandy, that you are 'working too hard' with these images. The original, apart from the required clone work, is quite good so only a few slight tweaks would be necessary.

[skitterbug]

I would suggest, Sandy, that you are 'working too hard' with these images. The original, apart from the required clone work, is quite good so only a few slight tweaks would be necessary.

Hi Geoff - So it would be better to do repair work, tweak a very tiny bit and then leave it alone. (smile) Sounds like a good plan to me!
Thank you!

[Cantab]

Sandy, I'm on the email list for Red River Paper. The most recent marketing email had a link to this blog post on reproducing and printing old photos. It may be of interest: http://blog.redrivercatalog.com/2018...30409601515782 .

[skitterbug]

Hi Bruce - It is interesting that there are paper products that copy "old fashioned" photos. I hadn't really given this step any consideration yet since my main focus has been capturing and repairing photos. I don't have a decent way to print, but if I do elect to send a photo to a printing service, this gives me data for a starting place as far as choosing paper is concerned! Thank you for the link.

[skitterbug]

Week 11 - Daylight Savings time change happened (huge sigh) so I am up earlier in the morning as far as daylight is concerned. I don't look at the clock much.....

Birds are already thinking spring even though it is very cold and snowing today. I caught the female cardinal a few days ago and the blue jay happened this week. I think the photos are acceptable but I feel like they are still not as "sparky" sharp as I would like them to be. I'm trying to get used to the various buttons/settings on the 7D Mark II and the added new lens.

#1 - Female Cardinal - ISO400 - 400mm - f/11 - 1/20ss



#2 - Blue Jay - ISO3200 - 400mm - f/6.3 - 1/640ss

[Manfred M]

Sandy, I'm on the email list for Red River Paper. The most recent marketing email had a link to this blog post on reproducing and printing old photos. It may be of interest: http://blog.redrivercatalog.com/2018...30409601515782 .

Every major paper manufacturer has heavy, matte paper without any OBAs (Optical Brightening Agents), which is effectively what the blog / article is about. The textures were sometime found in the old hand-made printing papers too.

The "fashion" in the fine art print community right now seems to favour this retro look, not just for reproductions but also for new pieces.

[Geoff F]

You certainly keep trying the difficult subjects Sandy.

With the first image, your shutter speed is way too slow, but you have actually got away with it this time. Your problem is virtually impossible light angles; which have over exposed the bird's head.

When faced with this sort of scene I immediately make an exposure compensation adjustment; but so often, just like with insects, getting an exposure to suit the brightest areas means the midtones and shadows get overly dark. However, you can usually recover something from the shadows but over exposed highlights are lost forever.

It would be possible to selectively darked the bird's head area but you still won't recover those fine details.

The second image is OK for exposure but you have focused on the tail which has left its head a bit soft. Autofocus often creates this type of issue so when possible I prefer to manually focus. However, birds are often moving around faster than I can focus so auto focus sometimes remains the best option. In that case, I try to take a few quick bursts while attempting to follow the bird and hope there will be a couple of keepers among all the rejects.

Large bird lenses, like macro lenses, have a shallow focus depth so it is so easy to find you have accidentally focused on the wrong areas.

Birds make interesting subjects but expect a lot of failures and some days the light levels and bird positions will mean ending up with nothing worth keeping.

[skitterbug]

Hi Manfred ~ I've been following the P52 Printing projects with interest hoping to pick up the reasons why a certain texture of paper is chosen for a photo project.

I also can understand the attraction to reproduce an old photo on paper that would complement its age. It is a plus that these resources are available to use!

Thanks for commenting!

[skitterbug]

You certainly keep trying the difficult subjects Sandy.

I can't make my life too easy or I'll become very lazy! <lol>

With the first image, your shutter speed is way too slow, but you have actually got away with it this time. Your problem is virtually impossible light angles; which have over exposed the bird's head.

When faced with this sort of scene I immediately make an exposure compensation adjustment; but so often, just like with insects, getting an exposure to suit the brightest areas means the midtones and shadows get overly dark. However, you can usually recover something from the shadows but over exposed highlights are lost forever.

It would be possible to selectively darked the bird's head area but you still won't recover those fine details.

I can't remember for sure but I think I was adjusting for the light meter reading, trying to get it properly set. It reduced the shutter speed. I'm struggling with the buttons on this camera. (frustration does happen) Also, trying to get pictures of birds around here is a challenge. There are no windows open to that area unless I kick hubby out of his favorite spot and that's not gonna happen. (LOL) So I'm on the second level capturing these pics. Not ideal at all but since I am practicing settings, I figured it was better than nothing!

The second image is OK for exposure but you have focused on the tail which has left its head a bit soft. Autofocus often creates this type of issue so when possible I prefer to manually focus. However, birds are often moving around faster than I can focus so auto focus sometimes remains the best option. In that case, I try to take a few quick bursts while attempting to follow the bird and hope there will be a couple of keepers among all the rejects.

Large bird lenses, like macro lenses, have a shallow focus depth so it is so easy to find you have accidentally focused on the wrong areas.

Birds make interesting subjects but expect a lot of failures and some days the light levels and bird positions will mean ending up with nothing worth keeping.

This is another frustration for me. I check Digital Photo Professional (software that came with Canon) and it shows that my focal point was on the head. At least that is the "red square" that is lighted up. See photo below..... So again, not sure what I'm doing to cause the un-sharp area. I have since changed from Evaluative metering to spot metering and wonder if this will help.

Thank you for looking at my attempts and offering your help! I appreciate it very much!

[joebranko]

Hi Sandy. With regards the over exposed head of the bird, I wonder if you have the 'blinkies' of your camera turned on. With this turned on you can immediately tell if a part of your image is bring washed out. This way you can make adjustments while capturing the image instead of in pp.