It seems to me that if you scan the original sepia print in color, then you should get a close to exact sepia replica as is without having to resort to editing.
John - that's too easy.... now I feel pretty stupid... :-)
But now that I've looked at it, I'm not so sure the original is sepia anyway. Here's the scan of the original. I guess I just wanted a challenge to see what I could create - and learn something in the process.
Now here's my fairly quick rendition.
-scanned in color
-desaturate with hue/sat layer
-add color fill layer, color blend with a sepia type color about 50% opacity
-add another color fill layer, color blend with more yellow about 50%opacity again
-levels layer in there.
Lastly, and for anyone who cares... the most interesting thing was that the original print had an odd texture on the surface that I didn't notice until scanning. It looked like little fish scales and were picked up rather un-wantingly in the scan.
Glad you're having fun.
What an excellent portrait, and in such great shape, too!
If the patterning bugs you, your scanner may have a setting that will correct it,
or using Filter->Noise->Median in PS at a setting of 2 or so may help.
Using a Layer Mask, you could erase the effect from the eyes, lips and parts of the hair to regain sharpness.
At one point in time, I knew the explanation for the fish scaling you see there. I've long since forgotten it, though.
Anyway, the reason for responding is that even if you are starting with a true black and white original, you should still scan in color. What you will find is that often one of the three channels will contain useful information the other two channels don't have, or that one of the channels simply looks better as a starting point. I know it kind of sounds silly, but you'd be surpised at how much easier the post-processing can be with have three channels to work from rather than just what you get from a BW scan. And if that doesn't help, you can always rescan in in BW.
Here you go Lon...I'll try to remember what I did, but I don't have the PSD file handy.
1) Ran Neat Image on default settings for noise reduction
2) B+W conversion (added a hue/saturation adj. layer, and an all black layer on top set to the "color" blending mode; then messed around with the hue/sat adjustments)
3) Curves adjustment to spread the range and brighten the darker tones
4) USM with amount 5 and radius 50 (I think)
5) Sepia Photo Filter on 60%
6) Sharpening tool lightly on the face
I probably should have burned the highlights in the face a little, and maybe pulled the blacks down more...
Was kind of following this along, as I've reproduced a few old B/W family photos. I don't have any brilliant suggestions, but I really like how you made this sparkle, David. It lost just a touch of Lon's old timey original but is neat!
Discussion
13 repliesI've got a vintage 1930's portrait of my mother-in-law that my wife would like to make reprints for her siblings - Mother's Day coming ya know.
It appears to be a sepia type print. I want to duplicate this as close as possible to the original. My questions are:
1. Should I scan this in color or greyscale to start with?
2. Which ever way I scan, does anyone have any tips or simple techniques for generating a sepia-looking print?
Thanks for any advice.
Lon
But now that I've looked at it, I'm not so sure the original is sepia anyway. Here's the scan of the original. I guess I just wanted a challenge to see what I could create - and learn something in the process.
-scanned in color
-desaturate with hue/sat layer
-add color fill layer, color blend with a sepia type color about 50% opacity
-add another color fill layer, color blend with more yellow about 50%opacity again
-levels layer in there.
Learn somethin' new everyday...
Anyway, I'm having fun....
What an excellent portrait, and in such great shape, too!
If the patterning bugs you, your scanner may have a setting that will correct it,
or using Filter->Noise->Median in PS at a setting of 2 or so may help.
Using a Layer Mask, you could erase the effect from the eyes, lips and parts of the hair to regain sharpness.
Your in-laws are just gonna love this!
Anyway, the reason for responding is that even if you are starting with a true black and white original, you should still scan in color. What you will find is that often one of the three channels will contain useful information the other two channels don't have, or that one of the channels simply looks better as a starting point. I know it kind of sounds silly, but you'd be surpised at how much easier the post-processing can be with have three channels to work from rather than just what you get from a BW scan. And if that doesn't help, you can always rescan in in BW.
Feel free! My mother-in-law won't mind.... :-) If you would like a larger version, let me know, I'd be happy to send you something.
John - thanks, as it turns out I'm only printing a 4x6 print, so the "scales" aren't showing up at that size. Thanks for the ideas though.
Thanks Dan - good thoughts.
Lon
1) Ran Neat Image on default settings for noise reduction
2) B+W conversion (added a hue/saturation adj. layer, and an all black layer on top set to the "color" blending mode; then messed around with the hue/sat adjustments)
3) Curves adjustment to spread the range and brighten the darker tones
4) USM with amount 5 and radius 50 (I think)
5) Sepia Photo Filter on 60%
6) Sharpening tool lightly on the face
I probably should have burned the highlights in the face a little, and maybe pulled the blacks down more...
Lon
Guy