Restoring old Ektachrome photographs

[SidW]

I'm posting this thread here as it's largely about filtering, albeit during processing rather than during the original exposure of the film.

The colour of my Ektachrome transparencies taken in 1961 has shifted to magenta, with general desaturation. This happened within 20 years from exposure and processing. Some trasparencies also have orange spots that grow larger over time. The film was 35mm high speed daylight 160 ASA introduced in 1959, process E2.

(1) The transparencies were scanned at 4000 d.p.i. with no other adjustments than stretching levels over the full lightness range from 0 to 255 without any clipping. Then (2), after any cropping, levels were adjusted (neutral midtones snapped, highlights and deepest shadows balanced to white and black, carefull clipping of highlights to preserve highlight detail, midtones lightened or darkened as necessary). Then (3) colour balancing; the magenta cast means green needs augmenting, sometimes by as much as 70%; red and blue usually need adjusting as well; highlights and deepest shadows are then brought back to white and black again. Finally (4) Saturation adjustment and retouching; each colour is adjusted individually - magentas, blues, cyans, greens, yellows and reds; this is a treacherous step as perception alters while you're working so it's very easy to oversaturate, resulting in horribly gaudy pictures.

First example: Tower Bridge (London)

A. Step 1. As scanned, slightly dark, a massive magenta cast and a seemingly
monochrome image apart from the funnels of the tugs and a hint of a blue sky:



A. Step 2. Cropped. The levels adjustments have partly corrected the magenta cast,
and more red and blue details have appeared. Lightened.



A. Step 3. Colour balancing of red -60%, green +20%, blue -10%; the magenta
cast has gone, the colours are more natural, but there's still a hint of red or
magenta in the clouds. The camera was facing southeast, light is from the
southwest so this was taken in the evening when there might have been a
slight red glow in the sky.



A. Step 4. The final version after adjusting saturation (Magentas -90%, Blues +50%,
Cyans +20%, Greens +40%, Yellows +20%, Reds +30%) and retouching
(mainly scratch marks in the sky area).




Second example: Hay wain (Bretagne)

B. Step 1. As scanned. a magenta cast with some colour showing through,
also severe orange spotting.



B. Step 2. Cropped. The levels adjustments have partly corrected the magenta cast,
and red blue and brown detail is more distinct. Lightened.



B. Step 3. Colour balancing of red -20%, green +40%, blue +10%. This has corrected
the magenta cast, the colours are more natural but somewhat dull.



B. Step 4. The final version after adjusting saturation (Magentas -90%, Blues +40%,
Cyans +50%, Greens +70%, Yellows +20%, Reds +20%) and retouching
(mainly scratch marks in the sky area and the orange spots).

[PeterW]

Nice clear step-by-step sequences, Sid, and nice restorations, too. They show what can be done with 'hopeless' cases. Even though I've used them loads of times I never cease to be amazed by what difference using the individual colour channels can make compared with trying to change the colour overall.

Professional restorers (and a few who aren't so professional in their approach) charge megabucks for this sort of work.

To a lot of people it sounds complicated at first, but it ain't rocket science. Once you get used to looking at the colour circle (Google for it, there are lots of websites that give it) and using the colours opposite to the ones that are dominating the picture a lot of the mystique fades away. It's also amazing how much colour and detail there is hidden away in faded colour photos, some of it faded so much we can hardly see it.

I recommend anyone who has pictures with a poor colour balance (for any reason) to do a 'save as' and try playing with Levels and with Colour Balance and Saturation in Photoshop or any similar image editing program. You'll surprise yourself with what you can do. There are very useful websites around from which you can get hints and tips, and even free tuition, but once you grasp the basics trying it is the best way to learn. Restoring and editing black and white photos is a related but quite separate subject with a fascination and technique all its own. I haven't mentioned 'hand colouring' black and white pictures but that can get a little more complicated.

I don't know what Sid used to take out the orange spots, but I use the 'rubber stamp' clone tool to take out colour spots and other blemishes. I like it better than the Healing Brush tool even though the brush can be quicker.

The clone tool is also very useful for removing unwanted things like telephone and power lines, bits of litter that thoughtless people have left on the ground and so on. I don't regard it as cheating, a painter can just leave them out, but with a camera you haven't got that option.

I don't regard this type of after-treatment as abandoning traditional photography. I find picture restoration and editing really fascinating and rewarding and I'm sure a lot of other members will too if they try it. It's a big subject so don't try to gulp it all down at once, you'll get indigestion. Start with the more simple things. Once you get hooked on it you'll want to investigate things like using Layers, Layer Masks, straightening converging verticals, dodging and burning, local softening and sharpening and so on.

Those who had, or still have, a 'wet' darkroom will know the hours you can spend, not to mention the expense, making test strips, trying different grades of paper, trying different colour filters in the enlarger, dodging and burning in, trying to keep chemicals at the correct temperature and so on. Not to mention hours with the smell of chemicals in your nose.

I used to love darkroom work, but now I find using a 'digital darkroom' on a computer is a much more pleasant environment, and once you've got the programs you can try things to your heart's content with no more expense than a few units of electricity and your time - and do things you just can't do in a wet darkroom.

BTW, Sid, I notice you scanned in at 4,000 dpi. There has been a lot of discussion on forums like retouchpro about how much advantage scanning at high resolutions actually gives (or doesn't give). I know you can't really tell from the computer screen because the screen is only 72 dpi; you have to compare the final print-outs.

I haven't got a dedicated film scanner any more. Mine went toes-up one day and it was too old to get the necessary repair bits. But I've done quite a lot of experimenting with my Epson flatbed at various dpi, or ppi (pixels per ich) if you prefer. I used to be a high-res scanning freak, but I found I got no really noticeable advantage at up to A4 size prints either from an inkjet printer or a colour laser printer from original scans much higher than 1,000 dpi. I haven't tried a dye sublimation printer because I haven't got one and can't afford one.

I usually scan at 800 dpi for finished prints up to about 8x6 inch and 1200 dpi for finished prints at A4 It gives me much smaller more manageable files, and needs a lot less memory so I don't have to mess about allocating memory between PS and the work.

In any case, large prints aren't meant to be scrutinised close-up unless you're a resolution freak. If they're viewed from the proper distance I reckon very few people indeed can tell the difference between and original scan at 1,200 dpi and one at 4,000 dpi. Try it and see what you think.

PeterW

[SidW]

Thank you Peter for your appreciative comments. As you point out, the procedures I used are very basic - levels, colour balance and saturation. Not only for restoration but for newly taken pictures too. All the adjustments were on the whole picture, no selecting small areas and correcting them individually although that could well be called for at times. I'm sure there are more sophisticated methods available for doing restorations of deteriorated colour transparencies.

How did I remove the orange blobs? As you guessed, the clone tool. For those not in the know, you copy small areas that have suitable colour, texture and detail, and paste them over the blemish you want to hide.

I agree with you completely that this type of after-treatment does not break with traditional photography. Just about everything you can do in, say Photoshop, was a regular procedure in the wet darkroom. One possible exception is using that clone tool for retouching, that was done in the old days by painting over blemishes with water colours.

Regarding scanning resolution. I did a lot of sound recordng at work and to maintain quality you would make a best master version that was archived and copies would be made from that. And I have taken that with me into photography. However, in professional applications there's no need to make a picture better than the end use will allow, e.g. printing in a glossy magazine or daily newspaper, or picture postcards, or selling houses. My previous film scanner was 2700 dpi and the results were always grainy. And 4000 dpi isn't all that fancy - it's about 160 dots per mm, which gives roughly 80 lines per mm. If I remember correctly, the resolution of good lenses was well above 100 lines per mm. Similarly, 2700 dpi is about 100 dots per mm and roughly 50 lines per mm. I haven't seen the discussions on scanning resolution you mentioned, but I'll certainly look them up.

[philbirch]

Bumped this old thread, I thought it was interesting, especially as some of us are scanning our old slides