Picture Repairs or Cleaning: Paintshop Pro or other editors.
 

Picture repair or cleaning using Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro or another program .... in this case a very old version of Paintshop pro v0.6 (now v0.9) can make a big difference to what is posted up.

Cleaning:

Before and After:

The picture was obviously scanned with mildew spots and dirty ..... So using minimalist cleaning techniques ("Least is Best") I cleaned the face, skin and hair line by cloning from good sections. I removed a few white spots as well, but didn't paint or redraw anything.

http://img172.imagevenue.com/loc376/..._123_376lo.jpg http://img199.imagevenue.com/loc181/..._123_181lo.jpg

Photo Repairs: Folds and Tears etc

Before and After:

The original has - rips, fold marks and missing sections ... the repaired version has most of these removed .... oh and to show what can be done I took out a fence post from the foreground :)

http://img248.imagevenue.com/loc546/..._123_546lo.jpg http://img163.imagevenue.com/loc183/..._123_183lo.jpg

The tricks are;

• Practice, learn how to use the editing tool properly for what you want e.g. I use the clone, auto fill, colour selection (from picture), repair and draw tools, and
• Patience ... I expand the picture up to a larger size and make lots of tiny changes, so that they can be easily undone, and not large section changes (where an undo, removes good and bad sections).

Both these pictures are from posts in my main thread ... no doubt photoshop experts will add technical explanations and descriptions, but the old family photos can be improved. I can't give technical help, I fly by the seat of my pants myself :rolleyes:

Basic Clone Tool Usage
 

I don't know what I was expecting, but I hoped all the Photo Shop and Paint Shop Pro experts, and others of that ilk would flock to the thread, and reveal the wonders of colouring B&W photo's etc ...... but I guess that if you want something doing, do it yourself .... mutter, mumble moan. :rolleyes:

Hopefully this will encourage the experts to give hints so these posts are only the basics for each tool, and use various versions of the only tool I have access to, Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop videos. Other tools and versions will vary in how to use the functionality, but the basics are the same.

Cloning: Best described as copying one part of a picture or another picture and pasting it over another part in the same or another picture. This is not strictly cutting and pasting, which is a collage effect, this is more a blending process.

Golden Rule Number One: For ALL these tasks use a COPY VERSION of the picture not the original. Use one or two copies as suits task, but leave original safe as you may need to make more copies. Remember, you can clone from numerous sources into one picture.

1. Open up your editing tool e.g. Photoshop or Paint Shop pro
2. Either paste in a copy of the picture that you want to edit, or open the picture with the editor and save with a new name (which makes it a copy), and in either case only use the copy/new version (so close any original).
3. Expand the picture up a size or two e.g. 3:1 ratio In mine its the wheel on the mouse, while the picture is selected (aka the picture having 'focus')
4. Now select the clone tool on the tool-set on the left side and R/Click to see what is available.
   
   http://img40.imagevenue.com/loc437/t..._122_437lo.jpg
   
5. Make sure that you have the following tools selected

6. • Colour palette
   • Tool options
   • Tool bar
   • Tool palette

7. Now you find a part of the picture that has a blemish, and using the tool to select a suitable replacement area (See the target cross-hairs?) Right Click on that area. This selects a small copy of that area to the clipboard for pasting (the size of this cut and paste is determined by the Tool Options function, and you vary it to suit the task being performed)
   
   http://img239.imagevenue.com/loc441/..._122_441lo.jpg
   
8. Now move mouse over the area to be replaced, and left click. if not happy use the edit undo to remove the clone step or steps - Control +Z keys on many programs
   
9. As well as single-shot selections, you can use this tool like a paint brush by keeping the left hand mouse key pressed down continuously pressed down and do whole areas BUT remember to watch where the cross-hairs are, because that's what your copying and pasting, and this moves in relation to where it was when your pressed the left hand mouse key down (unless you have set the aligned as unaligned in options, in which case the source are starts in the same area each time).
   
10. Alignments. You can either have the cloning tool move identically with that of the area where you are copying to (don't worry its easy to see when you try it), which means that when you resume, the copy area starts where it left off -this is aligned. Or you can have the tool restart the copy area from the original start point every time you resume. You might want to do this if only one good area is available to clone from - this is non aligned.
    

Tips:

• One good method is to clone the area around a blemish since it will be similar in color, density etc.
• Do small sections rather than big bits as the undo removes all of last action.
• You can undo everything unless you have saved, so only save when sections you are happy with have been done.
• You can use keyboard shortcuts if no mouse, to do this, these are usually the alt key on PC (or the option key if you're on a mac).
• Remember to review the tool size e.g. smaller or larger as suits the task.
• Be inventive, use the image rotate or image mirror functions to move useful parts of an additional copy of a picture to a position where a good bit mimics the position of the area that you want to repair ... it makes the cloning better and easier.

Before and After illustration
 

Using a newspaper picture of Linda Lusardi .... a very poor picture scan from her thread. First I re-sized it (made it a bit smaller), and gave it more 'colour' depth, but it was still very creased from the original very poor scan and not good quality .... similarly the 2nd pic was damaged, with missing parts

Before examples

http://img131.imagevenue.com/loc543/..._123_543lo.jpg .... and this one .... http://img144.imagevenue.com/loc745/..._123_745lo.jpg

So I then worked on each for about 30 mins, using the cloning function and got these ...

After examples

http://img161.imagevenue.com/loc209/..._123_209lo.jpg .... and this one .... http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc69/t...2_123_69lo.jpg

Its not a perfect technique by any means (although on light repairs its 100%), but these are examples of what can be done to rescue even the worst of images e.g. if you have a family event from an old Newspaper.

That is very good work from about as poor a source image as there can be.

Although I don't think most folks need Photoshop, most of the time, image repair is one case where Photoshop's tools are better than other stuff. "Content aware fill" and "content aware healing" are really quite good at handling some of the tougher cases

One more technique that I've seen used -- using vectors to define shapes lost in the original. That is, you can use the pen tool to make a sharp edge where you've got muddy newsprint and moire.

This takes you beyond "restoring" a photo to essentially creating a new, better image based on the photo. I've experimented myself, but I'm not all that proficient with vector/vexel art techniques.

GIMP - Freeware Picture Tool
 

As someone pointed out, some people don't want to pay for Photoshop or PaintShopPro so I found a freeware version of a phototool that does all the same tricks.

GIMP is an open source picture draw and manage tool

Take a look at the on-line manuals in various languages here and in English here

You can download it from here

Faking Pictures
 

The most popular thread in the classic celebrities section of this site is the 'Classic Celebrity Fakes ~ Now with added rules' - this is not my thing, but there you are. A bit of imagination and a lot of squinting your eyes can take you along way!

However I suddenly realised that there must be a lot of interest in creating these so I have had a go, using Mamie Van Doren as the model. I have added the results here so that those who would like to do this can consider the techniques.

Before: ................ After:

http://img270.imagevenue.com/loc341/..._123_341lo.jpghttp://img250.imagevenue.com/loc517/..._123_517lo.jpg

The tricks to success are similar to that for repairs, but I would suggest that you use two base pictures similar to the intended end result, this not only saves messing about but does a lot of the work for you .... just pasting the head on another body rarely results in a realistic fake :rolleyes:

For this one I used multiple versions of the same image mirrored and twisted, so that everything in it is 'real' i.e. All bits are of Ms van Doren and in that respect its not 'fake' but of course she has never done any open leg shots .... that we know of. I posted the pic on the fake thread as well because it was a shame to waste it. :thumbsup:

Faking Pictures Part 2
 

This is only technically a fake .... I removed the leather panties and replaced them with her pussy and ass from her nude modelling days as Cassandra Peterson. So its more a mock up than a fake.


This was created using the clone and picture repair tool (soften function) tool to blend in genuine body parts .... I only used nudes as this is an erotic site but it works for hands. feet etc ...

Funny. "The cuffs don't match the collar" as they say . . . the irony is that the crotch and the top are her, but due to her dye job[s], they don't match.

Fantastic job matching pose from image to image

I have been out with plenty of girls who are like this .... they dye the public but not the pubic :o

Final Presentation Makes A Difference
 

Don't always aim for perfection .... good results can be achieved from very bad initial sources, as I have shown ..... the following is a good example:

http://img167.imagevenue.com/loc1012...123_1012lo.jpg

After

http://img192.imagevenue.com/loc463/..._123_463lo.jpg

Top Tip Both the pictures above are reduced from the very large version on the web .... when working with a very large picture, consider resizing to a smaller version when you have finished the repair ... the very large pictures highlight those blemishes that only hours of work might remove, and lets be honest most pictures (like the one above), aren't worth that effort (which isn't guaranteed to work).

.... but after I had cleaned and repaired, and then reduced in size again, then the end results are very good, and without having to waste hours on all the scuffs that it would take ages to fix up.

http://img213.imagevenue.com/loc827/..._123_827lo.jpg

of course, where you can use floodfill (you can't always do so - but thats another post), then you can get rid of background scuffs, and this is the final version

http://img182.imagevenue.com/loc214/..._123_214lo.jpg

Flood Fills
 

Flood Fill (or sometimes Auto-Fill), is a feature on photo editing tools that allows the user to block fill a segment of the picture being repaired with one selected colour. It can be used in picture repairs, to fix faded areas, or give an even tone to an area where its blotchy. It does however have some major limitations (see pitfalls section), and should always be used only when appropriate, and always in conjunction with the other methods described in the thread.

Sadly the 10 minute film links on methods died according to a mod edit, so you need to search for movies on how to clone, flood-fill and paint etc.

Method:

Tips

• Always use a copy picture to make changes on and paste 2 or 3 copies into image area of editing application as back ups before commencing changes.
• Undo the fills immediately if unhappy with results, as clicking again only allows last change to be undone.

1. Select the dropper icon on the tool and use this to pick the colour to fill the selected area with. usually its a non faded part of the same area but it can be any colour from the palette.
2. With colour selected change the icon to Flood Fill.
3. Hover over selected area of picture and left click - the selected area is one colour.
4. Click more times to deepen the fill or ctrl-z (edit undo) to undo the change.

http://img247.imagevenue.com/loc86/t...l_123_86lo.jpg

In this example from earlier in the thread

http://img192.imagevenue.com/loc463/..._123_463lo.jpg

The black background is discoloured / faded but after using Auto-fill its even across the page.

http://img182.imagevenue.com/loc214/..._123_214lo.jpg

Pitfalls:

• The method only flood fills the area that meets your tolerance settings, and to the opacity level you have set up in options (see tool image above), so this can result in all the page turning black, or only part of area hoped for changing - experiment with tolerance settings.
• Some images will not accept this method i.e the whole image is affected - this seems to be a colour depth issue, which is not always resolvable by me increasing depth - I just use clone method instead.
• If the results are uneven just click over unchanged areas (or see tolerances).
• If the results impact main image (shadow or hair areas) in a minimal manner, then you can use another copy of image (see tips above) to clone back the affected parts to original state (use small size option on tool to ensure clean correction).

The Healing Tool
 

Last post from me in this thread concerns the Healing tool (or scratch repair tool), that later versions of the editing applications have. The GIMP application for example, which is linked to in the thread has a 'heal' function. These are very similar to the cloning tool, in that a selected area of the image is copied on to another area of the image, but the difference is that it attempts to blend in the repair by using information held in the surrrounding edge of the damaged section. This obviously has limitations, for example if the edge of the area to be repaired doesn't match what was in the damaged area.

1. Select the heal or repair option (two examples on image).

http://img132.imagevenue.com/loc238/..._123_238lo.jpg

2. Use the tool to select the area with the scratch (choose a width that is about 3 or 4 pixels wider than the scratch or the repair loses details.), and let go of selection to try to erase it. The Scratch Remover tool uses the background image details at edge of selection to create new information to attempt to replace the scratch in the rest of the selected area.

Tip: You should check results after each change because they can be imperfect, and touching up with the clone tool afterwards can improve the end results by making the repair/heal blend better.

NB:

• These tools works best for scratches on relatively smooth backgrounds and only on the main image i.e. The background image ... it is not available when you are working on layers which this thread isn't going to cover (well not by me as its too complex an area to cover in these quick posts).
  
• To remove scratches from a textured background, the Clone tool may be more effective. See the Cloning post.

Different applications have additional functions in this area, such as the Automatic Small Scratch Removal Command in PSP9 which I can't cover here, so best tip, if you have this function use the application help to find out how to get the best out of the tool and any additional functions it offers.

Personally I prefer the clone tool as I find it its easier to control, but for certain small repairs this tool is useful as it does the blending for you .....

Well good luck with repairing those battered polaroids of yesteryear and remember the main two tips;

1. Always use copies, never the original to make changes on, and
2. Practise makes perfect (literally in this case)

Cheers VK

Filling Parts, Enhanced, Resized Examples
 

A couple of joins .... various stages and sizes. As discussed earlier, those areas lost to magazine folds or just cut by editors have to have 'parts' inserted to replace them. All done using techniques described in earlier posts ... and utilising adjustment tools provided by professional photo editors.

Original Sized - Missing Parts Highlighted:

http://img273.imagevenue.com/loc204/..._123_204lo.jpghttp://img238.imagevenue.com/loc448/..._123_448lo.jpg

Original Sized - Missing Parts Filled and Enhanced Versions:

http://img107.imagevenue.com/loc417/..._123_417lo.jpghttp://img139.imagevenue.com/loc569/..._123_569lo.jpg
http://img187.imagevenue.com/loc54/t...2_123_54lo.jpghttp://img290.imagevenue.com/loc221/..._123_221lo.jpg

Resized - Missing Parts Filled and Enhanced Versions:

http://img205.imagevenue.com/loc483/..._123_483lo.jpghttp://img263.imagevenue.com/loc146/..._123_146lo.jpg
http://img182.imagevenue.com/loc59/t...d_123_59lo.jpghttp://img164.imagevenue.com/loc336/..._123_336lo.jpg

Another Illustration Of Changes
 

Here's a series of straightens, perspectives adjustments, fills, and colour enhancements - which show how the 3rd image and then the final image are obtained. Note there's not much I can do about the height perspective distortion, so its still a long body. :o

http://img106.imagevenue.com/loc136/..._123_136lo.jpghttp://img196.imagevenue.com/loc171/..._123_171lo.jpg http://img139.imagevenue.com/loc27/t...d_123_27lo.jpghttp://img34.imagevenue.com/loc465/t..._123_465lo.jpghttp://img255.imagevenue.com/loc7/th...ed_123_7lo.jpg

I'm late to the party but here's my quick attempt at the above repair using a different technique :

http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/32...8322754791.jpg

Basically I copied parts of Linda's hair (and the border) and pasted them into position, then rotated the pasted parts to best fit them and then used masks to blend them with the original.
Took roughly the same amount of time (using photoshop).

http://img205.imagevenue.com/loc197/..._123_197lo.JPG
I am wondering whether there is a way to repair images like this (I am not particularly interested in this image, this is just a typical example) with a photo-editor - short of doing it pixel by pixel [I use paintshop pro]. These kinds of stripey wavy lines are produced by scanners (especially some older ones), and I never had any luck when trying to get rid of them afterwards.

When this happens in my own scans I simply do them again with increased resolution - 600 dpi usually does the trick, once I had to go to 1000dpi (outch!). But with other people's images found here and there that's not an option.

Hard Work
 

In short, there may be a technical solution using a tool function, but I am not aware of it .... maybe a PSP or PS expert out there could reply and help?

There is a long winded method - LAYERS (which I am not expert in enough to really explain the use of as its too big a subject for this 'tip' thread, and partially as I am totally untrained myself and do it by trial and error, although I can make some use of them) ... there are web tutorials.

I did these fairly quickly as its just an example but it still took a while.

http://img218.imagevenue.com/loc928/..._123_928lo.jpg

or like this

http://img256.imagevenue.com/loc170/..._123_170lo.jpg

But this is a lot of work, and each one is different (well for me).

So in summary, no tool, just hard work.

The colour banding is basically a light interference problem. It can more clearly be seen when looking at the individual channels that make up the image :

http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...d324136870.jpg http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/32...9324136890.jpg http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...0324136907.jpg

The effect is most visible in the blue channel and (though slightly less so) in the red channel.
The green channel is the least affected.
Note the difference in the pattern in the red and the blue channel.

As VintageKell already pointed out it takes a lot of hard work in order to get rid of it.

The (quick and dirty and incomplete) example below demonstrates a different technique than used by VintageKell above :

http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/32...c324136928.jpg

In order to reduce the visibility of the colour bands I turned to the dodge and burn tool (photoshop).
These respectively brighten and darken the pixels of an image.

Instead of using these tools on the image layer I used them on the red and blue channel separately (in the channels palette turn off all channels except the one you want to work on).
Both tools were set to affect midtones only and an exposure of 20% for more control over the effect of the tool and using a very soft brush (0% hardness) for both tools.

The edited red and blue channel look like this :
http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...c324604429.jpg http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...e324604430.jpg

The result in the example above is only meant to demonstrate the effect of technique and is far from perfect since I only worked on the image for about 15 minutes (hence quick and dirty).

Colour Banding Follow Up
 

Zorin's excellent post above exhibits far more technical knowledge about channels and layers etc, than I possess, and was the sort of help I hoping for when the thread was started .... for instance I didn't even know the issue beutelwolf was asking about was called 'colour banding'. :thumbsup:

My reference above to 'layers' was the fact that I know enough to be aware that the layers and similar adjustment techniques, are how all these issues are supposed to be corrected, but which I am largely ignorant of, as I have too little time to learn more ... And one look at the thread will show you that that's not too much more than cloning :o ... but I get by with that, a good eye for joins and a lot of patience. :o

Zorin got his 'quick and dirty and incomplete' results in 15 minutes .... my 'quick' results were well over an hour of fiddling about and trial and error (hard work indeed!!) ... so its fairly obvious that his method of splitting the channels is the correct one, although there may be some more tweaks than that. ....

So I don't touch these types of pictures often, and few of those have turned out as I would want ... yesterdays was opportunely, an exception that proves the rule.

Extra Thought:

While I was in the pub last night I thought about this issue and Zorins post, and had a question.

Is it possible to replace the blue channel (in the example we are discussing), with one of the others ....renaming it 'blue' and changing it to blue?

I am probably exposing myself to some ridicule with this question, but I was thinking that by adding the corrected version (perhaps as a .. 'layer' LOL), then that could perhaps correct the problem with no other intervention?

However one poster on a website thread on this banding issue said "Sometimes, a little noise can help, but don't go above '6' generally. Other times you have to selectively blur and clone and heal and dodge and burn to remove it. Sometimes you have to do all of the above. If you can live without whatever you are doing to the file that is causing it, don't do it." .... which is pretty much back to my own 'hour of fiddling about and trial and error' .... ah well.

My last word ...
 

And on another tack .... there are web links on the subject of banding ... some deal with gradient banding (including colours).

One here

Another one here

And especially Here

This last has this advice ....

'Fading a single color to transparency will not yield pretty results. If you absolutely must fade a color to transparency, make sure the gradient is small, or that the range of color difference in the gradient is high. It’s the long and subtle gradients that cause problems.' ..... so you could try fading the bad band to 'transparency'

'Use Noise in Another Layer. If you absolutely need to maintain a lot of integrity in your photo, but still need to remove banding in some area, try adding the noise to its own layer.' .... which is mentioned on other sites.

It goes on to add that to do this ....

1. Create a new layer and fill it with 50% grey. That’s about #808080 if you’re working in RGB.
2. Place this layer above the image you’re adding noise to. In the layers palette, choose ‘Overlay’ as the blending mode.
3. Add noise to this grey layer, 2-3% should suffice but you should look in the preview image before you commit anything.

and that you’ll notice that the noise does not affect any very bright or dark areas of your image. Because the noise is in ‘Overlay’ mode, you’re free to crank up the noise as high as needed, without destroying the quality of your highlights or shadows.

Another benefit to having the noise in its own layer is that you can use your eraser tool to remove noise from areas where it is not needed. You could even take one step further, creating a complex mask and applying it to the noise layer, giving you full control over which areas are affected.

Finally: This last website link seems to have cracked it ..... I won't try to explain as its illustrated.

Some food for thought .... :thumbsup:

That wouldn't do much good since you would loose all the blue image data from the image and simply duplicate all the red or green data depending on which of the other two channels you would choose to copy.

The channels in an image file each hold (greyscale!) image data for one of the colour channels (primary colours in case of RGB) which make up the total image.
No I'm not kidding, a colour image file actually only contains greyscale data. The actual colour image is created by the graphics card in your pc and the monitor attached to it.

As an experiment I tried something similar in photoshop though instead of copying one of the other channels I tried to replace the original blue channel data with the edited copy of the original blue channel. Photoshop threw me into CMYK mode with an image containing only two channels which looked absolutely awful and which I threw away as quick as I could in order to prevent permanent damage to my eyes.

As far as the colour banding problem is concerned, I too tried a few other things first before turning to the dodge and burn tools and using them on the red and blue channels.
Ideally I would have wanted to use a mask for each of the annoying colour band patterns and use them to remove the colour bands by using them in combination with a colour adjustment layer. Unfortunately I was not able to find a quick enough way to create a mask for each banding pattern so I abandoned that idea.

one more thought on colour banding
 

The abovementioned websites deal with several different forms of colour banding that can occur, but I don't think beutelwolf's problem image is the result of inadequate colour representation.
Nor do I think the scan problem the last website describes is the cause because it deals with a straight band whereas the colour banding in beutelwolf's image are circular.

Instead I believe the problem is caused by a phenomenon known as Newton's rings which can occur when light is reflected between a spherical surface (your scanner's lens assembly) and an adjacent flat surface (the glass plate on which your image lies).
If you take a look at the wikipedia article on Newton's rings here the second image on the page looks a lot like the pattern which is visible in the red and blue channel of the image.

Still looking for a decent way to get rid of it more quickly though.

http://img179.imagevenue.com/loc437/..._123_437lo.JPG http://img200.imagevenue.com/loc167/..._123_167lo.JPG http://img34.imagevenue.com/loc151/t..._123_151lo.JPG
Regarding speculation about the cause, I put here a few more images from the same source (a particular ebay seller) that show similar poor scanning results. I somehow doubt this is a light reflection issue...

One theory I have is that patterns present (on closer look) in the original print can cause problems - possibly that the scanner in one section scan between ink spots, and in the next section scans the ink spots. Certain originals are a right pain to scan well. One example is this:
I happen to own the same mag, and I also struggled to scan these images well.

I happen to own one of the lobby cards so dreadfully scanned by that ebay seller.
I scanned it at different resolutions, the results (uncompressed except for the bmp->jpg conversion) are as follows:

http://img267.imagevenue.com/loc443/..._123_443lo.jpg http://img253.imagevenue.com/loc73/t...4_123_73lo.jpg http://img169.imagevenue.com/loc753/..._123_753lo.jpghttp://img216.imagevenue.com/loc78/t...p_123_78lo.jpg
The first image is a 100dpi scan - this was also negatively affected by the jpg compression. The second is a 150dpi scan. Stripes are still there, and show in the jpg very similarly to the bmp. The third is a 200dpi scan, and in this case the stripes are pretty much gone. The last image is a small snippet from a 600dpi scan (a snippet because the full image is 12MB), and here you can see the granularity of the print.

Polaroid Dust & Scratch Remover
 

At one time, Polaroid offered a free dust and scratch removal tool. It is still available through the wayback machine. YMMV, but I have found with certain types of images (speckled and stippled type) it works wonders. Obviously, its usefulness will vary based upon your image properties but its another toolkit in your bag. It appears to work on all versions of Windows.

Link here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200710150...sr/pdsr1_0.exe

Repair creases and scratches using content-aware fill
 

Came across this image of Amanda Cass recently

http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/32...6325796005.jpg

and decided to repair it. This is the result :

http://thumbnails111.imagebam.com/32...5325796045.jpg

How to get from original to edited version may be of interest to the readers of this thread
so here is a short description (in 2 parts) of how it was done using photoshop cs5 :

After colour correction via a curves adjustment layer the original background layer was
copied to a new layer on which the creases were repaired using content-aware fill and
healing brush.

Creases, scratches and other damage can be quickly repaired with the content-aware fill by
entering the quickmask mode and simply painting over the creases with black (shown as red
on the screen) using a small brush ( size between 8 or 10 pixels ) and hardness set to 0%.

http://thumbnails104.imagebam.com/32...c325796032.jpg

When all creases have been painted over quickmask mode is exited which turns the mask into
a selection in which all previously painted over image areas are excluded from the total
selection. The selection is then inverted (Select->Inverse) so it contains the creases only.

http://thumbnails109.imagebam.com/32...6325796038.jpg

To use content-aware fill you must first select a selection tool ( I usually select the lasso tool )
and then right click on the image to open the tool's context menu and select "Fill...".
In the Fill dialog box set contents to use Content-Aware with blending mode set to normal and
opacity set to 100% and click OK.

http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...3325796019.jpg http://thumbnails111.imagebam.com/32...d325796030.jpg

Content-aware fill generally does an amazingly good job seamlessly repairing damaged areas but there
are situations where it tends to choose the wrong image area to take its repair data from. If this
happens simply open the history palette ( Window->History ) and go back to the last step before
exiting quickmask mode. This takes you back into quickmask mode and allows you to change the painted
over areas by painting over them with the brush colour set to white.
Long creases or scratches are sometimes better repairable with content-aware fill by selecting them
in sections instead of one single selection.

Areas in which content-aware fill did not result in acceptable results were manually repaired using the
healing brush.

The repaired image looked like this :

http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...3325799610.jpg

Darkening and brightening parts of an image using layers, layer masks and blend mode
 

The previously repaired image

http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/32...3325799610.jpg

still has two problem areas : Amanda's head and especially the hair seem to be glued to the
back of the chair because the image area is a bit too dark there and the reflection areas in the skin and
white garments because the image is too bight there.

Darkening of reflections or too bright areas was done by copying the repair layer to a new layer and
setting its blend mode to multiply and its opacity to 50%. This produced an image in which the over-
exposed image areas were more toned down. A layer mask was then applied to this layer filled completely
with black ( effectively switching off the entire layer ).
A soft white paint brush ( opacity set to 15% and hardness set to 0% ) was then used to paint grey/white
into the layer mask in the areas where the layer should show through in order to only tone down the
reflection areas of the underlying (repair)layer.

This resulted in the following image :

http://thumbnails111.imagebam.com/32...1325799611.jpg

To selectively brighten up Amanda's head and hair a rough selection was made of her head and the area
around it. This selection was then copied to a new layer. This layer was then brightened by adjusting
the shadows and highlights (Image->Adjustments->Shadows/Highlights). Setting both shadows and highlights
amount to 10% produced the results I found best.
Again a completely black layer mask was then applied to this layer and the areas which needed to show
through were painted over with a soft white brush ( opacity 100%, hardness 0% ).

In all the entire repair operation took about an hour to complete.


NB

Darkening of an image's areas which are too bright can of course also be done with the burn tool but this
tool is "destructive" meaning that the original image data is permanently altered. If you've darkened an
area too much you can do one of two things : start over or brighten it again using the dodge tool.
However using the dodge and burn tools alternately on an image area generally results in a badly coloured
area.
Using a blended layer with a layer mask has the advantage of being completely non-destructive.
The layer mask is the only thing being altered and can be adjusted and tweaked to one's heart's content.

If there's an interest I can make the resulting psd file available. Just send me a PM.

Another Way Of Skinning A Cat
 

This was my result(s) ....

Original Repaired:

http://img11.imagevenue.com/loc116/t..._123_116lo.jpg

Repair Enhanced

http://img296.imagevenue.com/loc149/..._123_149lo.jpg

These results were obtained using the clone brush, the small repair heal tool, and the lighten and blur tools. For the enhancement I adjust brightness and colours on a copy - comparing against original repair, until I am happy I have made an 'improvement' (remaining very conscious that its a subjective opinion thing, which I why I offer the original as well).

I rely almost entirely on eye and patience. I expand the pictures up 300% or 400% and then go over it section by section. Occasionally I reduce size to confirm results look OK then resize up again. In many ways, my 'technique' if I can call it that, is as hard as Zorin's technical approach for anyone else to follow, as it is so subjective.

It's interesting to note how all the 'repairs', do not end up with the same final images. All of which just goes to show how subjective all the techniques are.

So I would like to publically thank Zorin, for giving such a full explanation of the proper techniques to do these tasks. Any visitor to this thread will now be able to approach a repair using a photo editor such as Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and the free GIMP, with some confidence.

But I will add one note of caution.... practise makes perfect. There is no one stop magic fix, even though some tools offer a quick fix button. These won't clean or repair damaged areas etc .. in the end practicing with the tools can get some great results.

Cheers

VK

Perspective adjustment using Gimp 2
 

I usually do this sort of thing in photoshop with the crop tool set to perspective crop
which automatically performs the perspective transformation but decided to give it a go
with Gimp instead so this type of repair can be done by anybody willing to download the
free Gimp and spend some time to get to grips with it ( like any image editor Gimp has
a learning curve ).

Incidentally, Gimp generally starts up in floating window mode after it is first installed.
On a single monitor I prefer to work in single window mode.
To switch Gimp to single window mode click on the Windows option on the Gimp main menu and
select 'Single-Window mode'.

http://thumbnails112.imagebam.com/33...6333482645.jpg

Load the picture into Gimp either by dragging and dropping or via File->Open (Ctrl+O) and
select the Perspective tool in the tools palette (or Shift+P). When selecting the perspective
tool from the tools palette you need to click on the image in order to activate the perspective
grid, Shift+P automatically activates the perspective grid on the currently active image.

http://thumbnails109.imagebam.com/33...0333482667.jpg

To correct the perspective of the loaded picture you need to set the tool's Direction option
(in the Tool Option palette) to Corrective and then drag the corners of the perspective grid
to the spot where you want the corners of the resulting image to be.

http://thumbnails109.imagebam.com/33...f333482673.jpg

When the drag corners are placed where you want them to be click the Transform button in the
tool's floating window to perform the perspective transformation.

http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/33...f333482677.jpg

It appears that Gimp resizes the resulting image layer to fit the original image's dimensions.
If you don't want that to happen first crop the image to only contain the area you want to transform.

http://thumbnails111.imagebam.com/33...e333482651.jpg http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/33...1333482656.jpg

Looking at the vertical border lines it is clear that the original image also has some vertical distortion
but it is so small that it is easier to crop the resulting image to exclude the original border than to
use the cage distortion tool to correct this.

http://thumbnails109.imagebam.com/33...3333482660.jpg

The image is now ready for further colour and brightness adjustment.


Naturally I wanted to compare the Gimp result with the Photoshop result and it came as a bit of
a surprise to find that the 2 images are vastly different.

http://thumbnails109.imagebam.com/33...a333482665.jpg

On the left is the Gimp result and right the Photoshop result. Photoshop clearly tries to maintain
more of the aspect ratio of the original area selected for transformation which, when compared to
the Gimp image, results in a taller image.
Without access to the original paper clipping it is impossible to determine which of the two is
closest to reality.

NB.
Unlike other image editors I know, Gimp 2's File->Save command saves the image in Gimp's native
image format only.
In order to save the image in any other format you have to choose File->Export.

Funny, I only just saw this -- a very interesting observation.

I tried zorin's perspective correction in Paintshop Pro, and the result looked like this:
http://thumbnails105.imagebam.com/45...a450436296.jpg http://thumbnails113.imagebam.com/45...9450436297.jpg
On the right after some further post-processing. The proportions look broadly similar to Photoshop.

I had often the issue with that correction tool that the resulting image was too tall, though this may have something to do with the kind of image I typically applied this too.

My gut feeling is that the tools treat perspective correction as a 2D problem, levelling first one line, and then adjusting the other line with an affine transformation. I wonder whether viewing it as a 3D problem would yield better results, or whether it really boils down to the same thing...

is there no tonal value correction in paintshop?

There is various stuff corresponding to that, but I normally stay well clear of that.

Very clever observation.

You know "ground truth" -- the image that you're seeking is of a flat sheet of paper.

A distortion has been introduced into it by photographing at an odd angle.

You can reverse that process by modelling it in 3D. (Slap the image on a plane in a 3D layer in Photoshop, and turn the image with respect to the camera).

. . . however: the success of such a process depends on having an accurate model for the lens that introduced that distortion. If you look at Adobe's "Camera Raw" import modules, they've got very detailed models for high end SLR lenses.

But that takes me to Adobe Camera Raw-- that's the best place to do perspective transformations, generally ignored by folks working with JPEGs, as the name suggests, its mostly about importing RAW files.

Camera Raw has got the best perspective and alignment tools. If you have Photoshop, you have Camera Raw

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/u...amera-raw.html

You typically invoke Camera Raw on a RAW or similar file, like a Canon CR2 (these are the zillion megabyte files that come off of a DSLR, uncompressed). To get the full suite of Camera Raw tool, you want to open the file in Bridge, but you can also load Camera Raw as a filter inside Photoshop, and apply to a JPEG . . .

Good intro to the Camera Raw perspective correction tools here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnnIaCWRQDM