Enhancing Old Prints

[perkeleellinen]

Hello All - I have a 4"x3" B&W print of my grandparent's wedding in the early 1930s - the only photo we have. Does an online service exist that allows me to upload a flatbed scan of this print and for it to be enhanced to allow for an enlargement? I would like to have a 10x8 of this print to give to some of my family. Years ago I photographed the print with a macro lens and enlarged it in the darkroom but it was quite soft. So I don't want a service which restores contrast or removes creases, it's about adding 'detail' (sorry, for imprecise language) to allow for a larger print. Does this exist?

Thanks!

 

[loccdor]

If I understand you correctly, you tried to enlarge it and there was not enough detail on the print to enlarge? In that case you may want to look into "AI Upscaling". But it can only do so much and it isn't to everyone's taste. There are free tools available online.

 

[perkeleellinen]

If I understand you correctly, you tried to enlarge it and there was not enough detail on the print to enlarge? In that case you may want to look into "AI Upscaling". But it can only do so much and it isn't to everyone's taste. There are free tools available online.

Thanks, yes, that's right. Tradiational enlarging did not produce detail.

 

[grain elevator]

I'm sure you're aware that detail that isn't there can't be added, the AI tools make up detail that mostly works but can also be off. To me that would totally miss the point of a historic image of sentimental value. What I'd do is make copies at the same size as the original, and if a larger format is wanted, add more matte space.

 

[xkaes]

Your enlargement might not have been "the best". You ought to look at the photo -- I assume you lack the negative -- with a 8x loupe. Is the detail better than your enlargement? If not, I agree with what has been said. If it is, then you -- or someone else -- could make a better print. But that takes a lot of attention to keep the contrast under control and get the exposure correct. Scanning is only one option.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Can you tell us the pixel dimensions of your original flatbed scan?

It *may* be that rescanning the photo using a higher resolution *might* provide a better enlargement? That is, if your scanner was set to 150dpi when you first scanned the photo, then rescanning at 600dpi might make a file that will print a little bigger(?)

As others have said, resolution cannot be created from thin air, but it is possible you first scan did not capture as much resolution as possible from your print. Obviously, if the original photo is not sharp, then any enlargement is only going to make that softmess more apparent.

I have copied many old family photos which I used to create a book about our family's history. Many of the photos were small. I always scanned them at 600dpi, and oftentimes I was able to have the photos appear in the book at sizes larger than the original, and they still looked pretty good. However, for my book, I rarely tried to enlarge the photos more than about 2x -- and you want to enlarge a bit more than 2x.

 

[_T_]

The name of the services that you are searching for is digital photo restoration or sometimes photo retouching.

These skills are very common. There are many people who can help you make the most of the information in your photo but there are also many who would overdo it and destroy some information in lazy attempts to do the job more quickly.

I can’t really guide you in knowing how tell who is capable of doing a good job without teaching you quite a bit about how the job is done.

 

[guangong]

I have been able to obtain reasonable restorations of very old photographs, even tintypes, with a flatbed scanner and Photoshop. I try to be conservative. Many old photographs were taken with simple box cameras.

 

[Pieter12]

If the photo is soft, software such as Topaz AI can do a great job of sharpening and providing detail without looking retouched, as long as you don't go overboard. I can post an example, if you'd like.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I can post an example, if you'd like.

Hi Pieter, yes, thanks, that would be useful.

Thanks all for the comments, much to consider. I should clarify, that when I attempted to enlarge this last time it was many years ago and it pre-dated home flat bed scanners. I may have more success with a scan, we'll see. I have asked my father, who has the print, to bring it round today. I'll post a quick ipad photo of it once it's here.

 

[MattKing]

I've had decent success doing what you want to do, although generally I haven't tried to increase the size that far. You may want to consider a 5x7 print instead.
The quality of your scan is very important. And like all scanning, that quality depends on your scanning equipment, your software tools, and your skill.

 

[Pieter12]

Hi Pieter, yes, thanks, that would be useful.

Thanks all for the comments, much to consider. I should clarify, that when I attempted to enlarge this last time it was many years ago and it pre-dated home flat bed scanners. I may have more success with a scan, we'll see. I have asked my father, who has the print, to bring it round today. I'll post a quick ipad photo of it once it's here.

 

[snusmumriken]

I've brushed up a few of my ancestors using a domestic flat bed scanner and then GIMP (no AI involved). Here's an example, from a glass negative. In this case, the scanner introduced an artefact (parallel lines like you get in quality paper), but they don't seem that important. More to the point, touching up the damaged areas and then tweaking contrast and sharpness revealed detail that you couldn't really see in the original.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Nice examples here, thanks!

Here's the print I'm working with, this is an iPad photo which doesn't hold up to enlargment:

I wondered if this might be a contact print, it's just slightly larger than a 116 negative. Image is later than I thought, April 1941, East End of London, Kodak postcard paper, our only copy of the only photo taken that day. I've looked at it with a 10x loupe, and it is soft, there's not really any detail if you look close at faces.

Maybe 10x8 in unrealistic and as Matt says, 5x7 might be better. I like the look of a 5x7 photo on 10x8 paper. Maybe I could aim for that. I'm going to try scanning this on our HP flatbed later today.

 

[snusmumriken]

Nice examples here, thanks!

Here's the print I'm working with, this is an iPad photo which doesn't hold up to enlargment:

View attachment 379381

I wondered if this might be a contact print, it's just slightly larger than a 116 negative. Image is later than I thought, April 1941, East End of London, Kodak postcard paper, our only copy of the only photo taken that day. I've looked at it with a 10x loupe, and it is soft, there's not really any detail if you look close at faces.

Maybe 10x8 in unrealistic and as Matt says, 5x7 might be better. I like the look of a 5x7 photo on 10x8 paper. Maybe I could aim for that. I'm going to try scanning this on our HP flatbed later today.

I think that may be simply the old standard ‘postcard’ sized printing paper, 5.5 x 3.5 inches, which would not imply that it was a contact print necessarily. I could be wrong (often am!), but I don’t think those proportions exactly fitted any film format of the time.

 

[MattKing]

If there wasn't half a world between us, I'd be happy to help you with this. There is a lot you can do with a flatbed scanner and the non-AI digital tools available.

 

[Don_ih]

I think that may be simply the old standard ‘postcard’ sized printing paper, 5.5 x 3.5 inches, which would not imply that it was a contact print necessarily.

That's the size negative from a postcard camera, so could have easily been a contact print.

There may have been a slight amount of camera shake that made everyone a little blurred. I'd say the negative was also somewhat overdeveloped. I think it could make a decent print on 8x10 - just not one you could hold in your hand and scrutinize. It's a good candidate for the AI enhancement software @Pieter12 suggested.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm not far away, you can bring it over if you want. I began photo restoration many decades ago, the hard way

Ian

 

[MattKing]

I'm not far away, you can bring it over if you want. I began photo restoration many decades ago, the hard way

Ian

Ian's correct - there are/were absolute magicians out there when it comes to using film and darkroom materials and techniques to do some amazing things with photo restoration.
But unless that describes you, or you have an "Ian" handy, along with a cache of some no longer made specialist materials, I would start with a flatbed scanner instead.

 

[snusmumriken]

That's the size negative from a postcard camera, so could have easily been a contact print.

Ah, thanks for the education. I didn't know about postcard cameras or 122 film before. According to Wikipedia, 122 film was apparently discontinued in the 1970s, so clearly such a camera could easily have been in use still in the 1940s. By way of comparison, my grandmother used a Kodak folder with 616 film for several years after manufacture of that film size was discontinued in the 1980s.

I also noticed that there are different statements online about that standard postcard size. I had it in my head that it was 51/2 by 31/4, but amended my post #15 after checking an online source. But it seems the majority verdict confirms 31/4 inches.

Nice to notice details like the tin bath hanging at the back, and the indispensible cigarette in the hand of the gent on the left. And the kids sitting on newspaper to keep their best clothes clean. The boy seems to be sitting on a coal scuttle. I'm sure there's a lot more telling detail there about post-war Britain. [Edit: I’m an idiot: ‘about war-time Britain’, I should have said]

 

[perkeleellinen]

The boy seems to be sitting on a coal scuttle. I'm sure there's a lot more telling detail there about post-war Britain.

That boy is now 90 and the only one alive from that group.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I'm not far away, you can bring it over if you want. I began photo restoration many decades ago, the hard way

Ian

Very Kind, Ian, I'd love to do that. Shall I drop you a pm?