A bit of a challenge, anybody?

[xpatUSA]

Looking through old pics with a view to scanning and storing digitally, I came across quite a good 5x3-1/2" print, circa 1955. Scanned it on the Canon MG8120 at 600 dpi and it put out a 3040x2104px BMP. Converted it to PNG and here it is without processing:



I played with it a bit, globally, not that good, ho hum, comments not invited.



Looks to me like only layers, masks, dodging, burning and all them other tricks would do a passable job.

Anyone having a go, please work on the first image, not the 1/2-size low-quality JPEG second image.

The bike is a Royal Enfield ex-WD 350cc side-valve, model unknown.

Note the Elvis-style pout on the 15-yr old owner (moi).

Thanks for looking!

[Tronhard]

Handsome devil!

[xpatUSA]

Handsome devil!

Too kind, Trev ....

[Manfred M]

Not nearly as old as yours, Ted.

This is a 1982 image I took of my wife during a photography course that my she and I had enrolled in at Conestoga College, in Kitchener, Canada. She had just finished her MA and wanted a camera (and wanted to know how to use it) for a planned trip to South Africa later in the year. I bought her a Leica R3 as a graduation present (the silver chrome version). I had the black chrome version of the R3.

The camera was a Leica R3 and it looks like I likely shot with a Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 135mm lens. I would have made the print using a Durst M600 enlarger equipped with a Schneider Componar f/4.5 50mm lens. I can't remember the paper I used, but likely one of the warm tone Kodak papers that I preferred for portraiture. I was using Kodak Dektol as my primary print developer at the time.

Scan was done with a CanoScan LIDE 220. Some minor scratch and dust removal and a touch of contrast correction during the digital conversion process.

[Pebal]

Processed in the SNS-HDR Pro. Default preset with more sharpening. No layers, no masks.

[xpatUSA]

Processed in the SNS-HDR Pro. Default preset with more sharpening. No layers, no masks.

Well done!

Beats my best:

[skitterbug]

You were (probably still are!) one good looking dude! Memories! Worth keeping!

[xpatUSA]

You were (probably still are!) one good looking dude! Memories! Worth keeping!

(blush) thanks, Sandy, but "probably still are' is a bit moot.

[MrB]

:
Here's an attempt. Selective adjustments to brightness, contrast, local contrast and sharpness, plus a bit of cloning here and there, using PaintShop Pro:



Philip
:

[Manfred M]

Here's one done the "old fashioned" way, lots of dodging and burning, a bit of mid-tone contrast and a bit of sharpening.




I saw lots of Royal Enfield motorcycles that are running around India. While they were originally built under licence, Eicher Motors is building newer models that have been designed and are built in that country.

https://www.royalenfield.com/

[Pebal]

Second version.

[xpatUSA]

Wow, gents, I am highly impressed!!

[William W]

I think much depends on what you'd use it for. I'd print it. Then much depends on how big. I'd do roughly 5x7 (I still think in inches for prints, most of the time).

That being the case - the dust spots and the scratches were annoying; so were the posts; it needed a but more of an incline; additionally - the usual stuff - contrast - local dodging and burning - repair the logo - accentuate the rugged face - etc.

The result prints quite well at 5x7. There are more 'imperfections' to be seen on the peeping screen, than in a (small sized) print.

FYI - It took about 1 hour and it was fun doing it. If it were a serious attempt and you only had the Print, (i.e. not a neg), then, I would consider attacking the print, first - (see my second image for explanation).



WW

Post Script -

It's interesting.

I just did A/B of mine with the others - noticed lots of stuff - something which stood out was that I was far more aggressive with the contrast on the facial expression, for expression, and at the cost of fine detail. That's exactly what I meant when I wrote "I think much depends on what you'd use it for."

I took to task editing the image for the purpose of producing a 5x7 B&W print from a digital file. In a 5x7 print there's not going to be all that much facial detail, my purpose was - overall punch.

[William W]

Explanation - (the retouching inks, not the Nagra):



WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2020 WMW 1965~1996

[xpatUSA]

I think much depends on what you'd use it for. I'd print it. Then much depends on how big. I'd do roughly 5x7 (I still think in inches for prints, most of the time).

<big snip> Post Script - It's interesting.

I just did A/B of mine with the others - noticed lots of stuff - something which stood out was that I was far more aggressive with the contrast on the facial expression, for expression, and at the cost of fine detail. That's exactly what I meant when I wrote "I think much depends on what you'd use it for."

I took to task editing the image for the purpose of producing a 5x7 B&W print from a digital file. In a 5x7 print there's not going to be all that much facial detail, my purpose was - overall punch.

Thanks, Bill. Please pardon the big snip. I do agree that the output medium makes quite a difference, as we all should know. For example, consider a smart-phone versus a big wall-mural!

All my stuff is viewed by myself on a 24" 1920x1200px monitor viewed from about 15 to 20", without glasses most of the time and often aided by a 5" Holmes-style 1930's magnifying glass. My un-aided vision is myopic, needing about -4 diopter correction. As a result, I have a sneaky feeling that most of my posted work looks over-sharpened to others here.

By the way, the re-touching inks were interesting, too.

[William W]

. . . All my stuff is viewed by myself on a 24" 1920x1200px monitor viewed from about 15 to 20", without glasses most of the time and often aided by a 5" Holmes-style 1930's magnifying glass. My un-aided vision is myopic, needing about -4 diopter correction. As a result, I have a sneaky feeling that most of my posted work looks over-sharpened to others here. . .

Then my guess (actually a question to you) is that you'd be seeing (probably 'ugly') artifacts in my edit, which would not necessarily translate to a 5x7 print?

WW

[xpatUSA]

Then my guess (actually a question to you) is that you'd be seeing (probably 'ugly') artifacts in my edit, which would not necessarily translate to a 5x7 print?

Not an easy question to answer, Bill, because I know very little about printing. I did download your posted edit which turned out to be 1365x921px (14"x9-1/2" on my monitor) after cropping it out of the post. At 400% zoom, I didn't see any artifacts - i.e. no aliased edges, etc.

I guess maybe 180 ppi would get just over 5x7" from 1365x921px . At a correct-ish viewing distance of about 9", it should look about the same I would have thought ...

[William W]

Not an easy question to answer, Bill, because I know very little about printing. I did download your posted edit which turned out to be 1365x921px (14"x9-1/2" on my monitor) after cropping it out of the post. At 400% zoom, I didn't see any artifacts - i.e. no aliased edges, etc. ...

Wow - better than I thought. I didn't look that close: I edited the Logo at 200% and most of the scratches and dust at about 120%.

I printed it (Canon PIXMA PRO 100S in monochrome B&W) and it looks fine at 5" Viewing Distance. Maybe too contrasty for some, but, for my taste, it is a 'gutsy' B&W photo of the era.

BTW I deleted the print (shredder) and will delete the image data files from the other server, in about 1 month - I always do that.

Cheers.