Old Photo help needed (which technique used?)

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

The OP is difficult to answer, but my posted pictures are much easier to figure out if one wishes to. There is no trick in mine at all. Some were quick to answer the OP, but not mine. I think it is because in the case of the OP, any opinion will do because we will not know, but in the case of my 3 pictures, I know the answers and the answers might surprise some.

PE

Ian Grant · Oct 7, 2010

Not the case, the OP gave us valuable information about the date the image must have been taken before "The photo is taken from before 1937 after which the wings were removed just before the war." That itself rules out it being a faded colour print assuming the print was made at the time, it's obviously not shot on colour negative because it's too early.

So we can make a very good informed opinion based on other contemporary similar images made before WWII on warm tone papers, contact papers etc, particularly when some of us have seen a lot of pre-WWII European images from that region Holland/Belgium/France/Germany etc.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

The OP does not tell us when the print was made though. It could have been made in the 40s, 50s or even later!

In addition, Friedman in his book and Leadly and Stegmeyer in their book cite color print processes that were commercialized back as far as the late 19th century.

We know that Kodachrome existed in 1935 and there were color materials before then as well.

PE

Hexavalent · Oct 7, 2010

Is it indeed a silver process print? Could be something else entirely

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

Well, note that Willie Jan says that the paper stock is unusual. He says in a post that it does not appear to be baryta.

PE

Q.G. · Oct 7, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
The OP does not tell us when the print was made though. It could have been made in the 40s, 50s or even later!

You have to think things through a bit more, PE.

So if this is a print made in the 1960s, could that turn a monochrome original into a colour original?

Your point about your game?
See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) image?
Is it a colour image or a monochrome image?

And after you have figured out what the answer would be, inform us what that answer would tell us about the OP's picture.

The OP's question is not difficult to answer at all.
It is a monochrome print. Only you appear to have difficulties with that. So simple logic would suggest that it's you that is difficult?

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

You may be interested in these then.

The both shots were taken in 1961 on Ektachrome film. The third example was corrected by the same means that I applied to the OP example. It is simply a color balance change and a slight increase in contrast.

PE

Q.G. · Oct 7, 2010

I'll try again then.
I have loads of photographs i could do many things to.
Now tell me, how does that change anything about the OP's picture?

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

It does not. We have 6 things to consider.

1. We don't know what the original print was nor its date.
2. We don't know if the camera original was a slide or a negative.
3. Some colorization takes place when scanning and when manipulating.
4. No colorization takes place when scanning or manipulating a B&W original.
5. There was some color from some source in the print.
6. The paper does not appear to be baryta.

None of this allows us to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the OP. My posted photos illustrate some of these points but do not solve the problem. They do tell us that we may be unable to solve it without some sort of testing.

PE

Q.G. · Oct 7, 2010

You're right about the many unknowns.
Except about the colourisation: it can and will happen when scanning a B&W original. The machine, a scanner, is a colour producing machine.

The best thing the OP could do is go to the Nederlands Fotomuseum, or the University of Tilburg (keeper of the Brabant Collectie). The Limburgs Museum in Venlo also has a collection of photos that 'cross' the province border, across the Peel, into Brabant.
Maybe there it is possible to find out who could have made the photo (there are a few relatively well known (regionally) names who produced well documented work that were active in that region at that time). Perhaps one of these institutions even has a copy of this very photo in their own collection.

P.S.
If none of these know the photo, i'm sure that at least the Brabant Collectie would be interested in putting (a copy/scan of) it in their collection.

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

The answer

I must state up front that this is my result with my scanner (Epson) and my software. My conclusions are based on the equipment and software used.

Ok, that said, the Pine picture is from an Anscochrome original from between 1950 and 1955 and printed on Printon at that same time. The color of the transparency was very muted with a brownish dmax, and the Printon print further reduced the saturation and contrast. Over 50 years of keeping did the rest. Treating it just as I did the OPs picture, I could do nothing more than remove the cast. It still looks like a B&W print. However, there is a clue to identifying this photo. In the upper right there is a scratch. It is very slightly off color to the eye and the scan shows just a hint of color. Enhancing the color enhances the color of the scratch which is the bottom layer, or the cyan layer. I have included both here for comparison.

The Daibutsu photo was taken on unmasked Sakura film in 1959 and printed at that time on an unknown color paper. The print has faded so badly that only red and green are easily seen. Restoration in PS gives a reasonable color photo.

The park scene was at Shinjuku Koen, 1959 on Sakura film and was printed on Oriental color paper. The print was mostly red and green. Restoration does not do very much for this but does show some differentiation in color.

I was unable to add color to any B&W photo unless it was a solid color cast either by scanning or by manipulation after the scan. If some color was present, or if color differences existed, regardless of the original type (color or B&W) then the color came through and could be enhanced. This reinforced my original feelings, but cannot prove that the OP has a color photo. This method actually revealed the cyan color of the scratch in the pine photo in spite of it looking like a B&W print. The scanner was more sensitive than my eye to this very slight color change and enhancement revealed it totally.

The three other pictures that I posted, of the surfers and the two flying home photos show that color can resemble B&W and that restoration of a badly faded photo does work to some extent.

PE

Q.G. · Oct 7, 2010

Three things:

The OP's scan does not show anything that could be interpreted as differentiated colour. Nothing that would indicate it is not a monochrome print.
As said before: you were way too optimistic.

A scanner can do many things, including creating colour where there is none. It does that depending on reflective properties of the scanned item and intensities.

Whatever you or i do to whatever picture we may choose to multilate, it says absolutely nothing about the OP's print.

R Shaffer · Oct 7, 2010

Very cool.

I am way surprised at how well the color came back on these images. Fascinating examples.

Thanks

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

I see brown (tree trunks), yellow (barn), blue (sky) and red (shirt) in the OP. I see them enhanced in my restored example. The scanner saw them and PS saw them just as they did in my personal examples. A scanner can see color that we cannot clearly see though, and that is the point of my personal examples being posted above. Notwithstanding that the blue is not clearly seen in the original, the scanner detected some level of blue in the sky just as my scanner saw a hint of cyan in the scratch.

It still proves nothing though, but it does open up possibilities if you are open minded about this. I cannot say that it is B&W or color but I open the door, I do not shut it on this. I suggest that the photo be examined by an expert in person.

So far, I have been unable to take a B&W print and force color differentiation on it by processing or scanning in the detail I see in the OP. I have seen the claims here to the contrary, but no examples to support the claims. So, I leave this as unsolved until we have more evidence one way or another.

You can call me curious but not adamant about this.

PE

Q.G. · Oct 7, 2010

And you are still seeing things...

I have seen nothing of the sort. And i have looked closely (using PS as well as other tools).
And trust me, i do know how to look.

For scanner created colour, you do not have to look further than the OP's picture, and his explanation that the blue we see is not in the print.
And that's not all scanners can do.

Now don't be so modest: you have indeed managed to force colour into the print: your mangled JPG version has lots more colour in the compression artefacts than there ever was in the original.
And, apart from the artefacts, you have colourised the original too.

You certainly are adamant in willing it to be a colour print, and not just a coloured and discoloured monochrome print.

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2010

Please reread my last post. I am not adamant and can go either way, but I do have an opinion that is certainly not directly supportable. OTOH, you seem to be adamant about what is and what is not true about the OP and my analysis. I am very willing to be proven wrong, and would like to know what the OP really is!

PE

Ian Grant · Oct 8, 2010

Q.G. said:
And you are still seeing things...

I have seen nothing of the sort. And i have looked closely (using PS as well as other tools).
And trust me, i do know how to look.

For scanner created colour, you do not have to look further than the OP's picture, and his explanation that the blue we see is not in the print.
And that's not all scanners can do.

Now don't be so modest: you have indeed managed to force colour into the print: your mangled JPG version has lots more colour in the compression artefacts than there ever was in the original.
And, apart from the artefacts, you have colourised the original too.

You certainly are adamant in willing it to be a colour print, and not just a coloured and discoloured monochrome print.

It's all in the mind

Ian

AgX · Oct 8, 2010

Q.G.,

My first impression the moment I saw that image was that of a distorted true colour picture.
And I very much enjoyed the following discussion. May one call it mindgame or academic.

Willie Jan · Oct 8, 2010

Q.G. said:
The best thing the OP could do is go to the Nederlands Fotomuseum, or the University of Tilburg (keeper of the Brabant Collectie). The Limburgs Museum in Venlo also has a collection of photos that 'cross' the province border, across the Peel, into Brabant.

I borrowed this photo from someone who has it on the wall. The photo is sticked to the glass at some point due to water. So i had to make a copy from the photo from behind glass. It was very exceptional that I was able to get it to make a digi copy.
So getting it to a museum is not possible.

My only concern was, if this image was faded or that the original was the same. The woman told me she bought it as it is now (reddish) long time ago. So i was curious what technique would have been used. But if it is not possible to determine it without the original I think it ends here...

Q.G. · Oct 8, 2010

You could still try the image collections i mentioned. The Brabant Collection at the University of Tilburg perhaps would be best to try.
They may be able to identify the photographer using your image file.

Q.G. · Oct 8, 2010

AgX said:
Q.G.,

My first impression the moment I saw that image was that of a distorted true colour picture.

If you select a colour you think could be a remnant of a true colour in a supposed colour original, and see where else it appears in the image, it's hard to keep believing it could have been a colour original.

Why, it's extremely hard even to find a colour (besides that reddish tint) that could come close to what perhaps could have been a true colour in an original colour photograph.
So what i did was sample colours in many places that would have a distinctive colour in an original colour photo, and see where else it appears. For instance, if we assume that the trees are green and look were else that same colour appears, the dirt road, the brick house, the wings of the mill, the faces of the kids, and many other places too are green. Same with other sampled points in the photo.

You can also do a general test, and boost any one of the three colour channels in the digital representation. You'll find then that the effect is not local, not particular to parts in the image (that is not to say that every spot is affected equally; there are colour and tone differences) in a way that even remotely could suggest a colour photo origin.

Mind you, that is still not hard evidence. It could still be an original colour photo in which all traces of having been that has disappeared.
It however is (let's say: ) 'in contrast' to what PE claims, being that there are bits of original colour to be found in the picture.

There are indications (not proof!), apart from the picture itself, about what it could be. Circumstantial evidence. At that time, colour photography, photography itself even, was not a widespread activity. On the contrary.
There are a few known photographers who have travelled and documented the region at around that time. They all worked in B&W. No colour.
And that is something the image collections i mentioned could help with: if from the work of any of these photographers, they may know the image, the man who produced it, and what he used to produce images.

2F/2F · Oct 8, 2010

Might the original photo be a poorly-aged monochrome color print that was made from a black and white negative shot decades prior? I seem to remember some mention of the base and surface of the print being more color-like than black-and-white-like (though the description was not terribly clear). This possibility could be a reason for the cast, for the color-print-like base and surface, and for the apparent lack of anything other than various tones of the same hue. (The original pic looks more monochrome to me than the three from the game that I guessed were all color pix, though by eye I could not swear that there is no chromatic differentiation in it without seeing a better reproduction. The three from the game displayed what I saw as visible traces of more than one color, especially in pix two and three.)

P.S. Do I win a microwave? A toaster oven? A swift kick in the teeth? What?

Photo Engineer · Oct 8, 2010

2F/2F said:
P.S. Do I win a microwave? A toaster oven? A swift kick in the teeth? What?

Do you want a roll of Royal X pan that is 20 years out of date and has never been refrigerated? Howzat? I may have one left.

PE

railwayman3 · Oct 8, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Do you want a roll of Royal X pan that is 20 years out of date and has never been refrigerated? Howzat? I may have one left.

PE

Can I have one of those too? (My wife says that I'm the saddest person she knows, just cos I save discontinued film packets. )

Photo Engineer · Oct 8, 2010

If I have one, I'll saw it in half so you can both share!

PE

Old Photo help needed (which technique used?)

Photo Engineer

Ian Grant

Photo Engineer

Hexavalent

Photo Engineer

Q.G.

Photo Engineer

Attachments

Q.G.

Photo Engineer

Q.G.

Photo Engineer

Attachments

Q.G.

R Shaffer

Photo Engineer

Q.G.

Photo Engineer

Ian Grant

AgX

Willie Jan

Q.G.

Q.G.

2F/2F

Photo Engineer

railwayman3

Photo Engineer

Old Photo help needed (which technique used?)

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency