Enhancing Old Prints

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,905
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
1,503
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,905
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
Thanks, yes, that's right. Tradiational enlarging did not produce detail.
 

grain elevator

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,286
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,790
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,756
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
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_

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
415
Location
EP
Format
4x5 Format
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

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,594
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
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.
 
OP
OP

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,905
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
Pieter12 said:
I can post an example, if you'd like.
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,879
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,594
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8

 

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,484
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
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.

 

Attachments

  • Henry Rogers detail.jpg
    105 KB · Views: 22
  • Henry Rogers cleaned detail.jpg
    783.2 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
OP
OP

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,905
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
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.
 
Last edited:

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,484
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,879
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,719
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
snusmumriken said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,879
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Ian Grant said:
I'm not far away, you can bring it over if you want. I began photo restoration many decades ago, the hard way

Ian
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,484
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
Don_ih said:
That's the size negative from a postcard camera, so could have easily been a contact print.
Click to expand...
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]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…