Quantcast Really red/magenta pictures, how to fix? - digitalFAQ Forum
  #1  
05-04-2017, 11:35 AM
suedue suedue is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tx
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have several pictures that are REALLY, REALLY red/magenta. The image is barely visible. I have scanned one and am attaching it so you can see what I mean.

I have downloaded the most current version of Adobe Photoshop in hopes that I will be able to remove the red and get a usable photograph.

Any and all help would be appreciated.


Attached Images
File Type: jpg Colin Monster.jpg (48.3 KB, 12 downloads)
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
05-04-2017, 04:32 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is online now
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,398
Thanked 1,066 Times in 889 Posts
I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you're not very familiar with Photoshop Pro or CS because you mention "removing" red. That would leave you with a blue-green image, which is not what I think you'd want. I note a lot of noise in this underexposed photo, some bad jpeg compression noise in the original, some more added jpeg compression artifacts in the posted sample that make it fairly unsuitable as a working copy. If you use Photoshop to convert the image to grayscale you'll see what I mean. You can also separate chroma channels in Photoshop and will note that the green channel shows up as gray anyway, which means there is hardly any green in the picture. You can simulate some colors by expanding the dynamic range of all three color channels with PS's levels controls, but I don't think you'll get a superb photo out of it, and there 's no way to make the colors look "right" without it appearing to be badly hand-colored.

Someone else could just as easily prove me wrong, so I'll stop there. But I think you might consider living with a grayscale version of the photo, suitably enhanced with PS Levels filters.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
05-04-2017, 04:38 PM
suedue suedue is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tx
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sanlyn, you assume very correctly that I am not at all familiar with working with Photoshop. I appreciate your taking the time to analyze the problem and assess the best way to solve the problem. I have sorted through hundreds of photos and have at least 10-15 photos with this problem, so it will help me a lot to know that grayscale is the best solution for me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Susan
Reply With Quote
  #4  
05-04-2017, 04:55 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is online now
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,398
Thanked 1,066 Times in 889 Posts
I understand your situationj, but don't let me be a voice of doom. Grayscale might be a cleaner choice, but not the only one. You can't use simple RGB controls for this kind of work, a the reason for getting Photoshop is to acquire far more sophisticated image filters. Even a seasoned PS guru would have to experiment for quite some time with problems like this. There are tons of free articles on the .net, although none of them are sure-fire solutions. Underexposure and/or completely faded color layers are among the most dreaded problems in both video and still photo.

Here is one possibility, by no means the best answer but a little more clarity about what's actually "in" the photo. Worked entirely with PS "Levels" and "Curves" filers (the old contrast and brightness controls are useless for this kind of work). Practically every little spectacle and spot you see in this grayscale image is a different color in your sample, looking like pointilist art:



Attached Images
File Type: png Gray1_540x680.png (287.9 KB, 23 downloads)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
05-04-2017, 05:11 PM
suedue suedue is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tx
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It helps to know what happened, and I sure didn't know before now. Even seeing my son's little face in grayscale is better than not at all. You've been very helpful. I know absolutely nothing about photography-- strictly a "point and click" person. I am trying to teach myself all I can about Photoshop during the 7-day trial to see if I want to invest in it. LOLOLOL.... (as if)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
05-04-2017, 07:32 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is online now
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,398
Thanked 1,066 Times in 889 Posts
The Pro versions of PS are a big investment. Unless you're into some very specialized work that only the newest version can handle (not likely), earlier versions are cheaper and you get to own yours instead of renting. I made the grayscale in about 3 minutes with Photoshop Pro v. 5.5, which was issued in 1999. You don't have to go back that far, lol! Except for the free GIMP, which is more difficult to learn and clunky to use, there's no competition for Phototshop Pro short of spending more for something like DaVinci, which is overkill.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
05-04-2017, 08:30 PM
suedue suedue is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tx
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thank you very much for the information. I am hardly into any kind of specialized work-- just copying and trying to save our personal photos. I probably have a personal copy of a later version of Photoshop on a CD...... duhme. I should just install it and learn it and be done with it. I sure don't need to be trying anything HARD at this point. I'm retired and my brain is very tired. Maybe I can find a good tutorial online or a book for Dummies. Thank you again for all your help. You are so kind to take the time to guide me.

Susan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
05-04-2017, 11:44 PM
kpmedia's Avatar
kpmedia kpmedia is offline
Site Staff | Web Hosting, Photo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,241
Thanked 354 Times in 332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by suedue View Post
I have scanned one
Print or negative?

If negative, this is very likely your weak link. What did you use to scan? Most of those cheap $100 toys have severe problems with color quality, sharpness, and just general overall photographic quality. My Nikon scanner, by contrast, would have fixed this in-scanner, and I'd have a much better image to adjust in Photoshop.

If print, then there's a strong chance that it's simply deteriorated, and you'll get a much better image by going back to the negative/slide source. Assuming it's not a Polaroid, of course. But even then, I've done some amazing photo restore jobs on Polaroids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
Someone else could just as easily prove me wrong
Nope, not wrong. Photoshop has its limits.
Like our video members often say, garbage in = garbage out. Same applies for still photo.

Quote:
I think you might consider living with a grayscale version of the photo, suitably enhanced with PS Levels filters.
With this scan, yes, it's the best option. But I'd suggest having a better scan made before giving up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
Even a seasoned PS guru would have to experiment for quite some time with problems like this. There are tons of free articles on the .net, although none of them are sure-fire solutions. Underexposure and/or completely faded color layers are among the most dreaded problems in both video and still photo.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
The Pro versions of PS are a big investment. Unless you're into some very specialized work that only the newest version can handle (not likely), earlier versions are cheaper and you get to own yours instead of renting. I made the grayscale in about 3 minutes with Photoshop Pro v. 5.5, which was issued in 1999. You don't have to go back that far, lol! Except for the free GIMP, which is more difficult to learn and clunky to use, there's no competition for Phototshop Pro short of spending more for something like DaVinci, which is overkill.
There's never really been a "Pro" version of Photoshop, in terms of naming conventions. I started with the LE edition of PS3, which was the first and only "LE" (Limited Edition, but not really limited) that came with Aldus PageMaker 5.0 (newly owned by Adobe) in 1993. You had PS 1-7, then it started over the "CS" versions (CS1-CS6), which has again been reset with "CC" (and the CC# is the year, like 2017). It's confusing, I know. Additionally, during the CS era, you have the "Elements" version, which was very limited (unlike the LE) and had a dummy-friendly interface.

At this point in time, I generally suggest against the 1-7 versions, and prefer the CS versions for many reasons. CS2 is light and stable (even under Wine on Linux, using Ubuntu-based like Xubuntu and Mint), but CS3-CS6 is outstanding for native Windows or Mac use. For non-advanced users, or even advanced users like myself, CC doesn't offer much. During the later CS days, x64 and newer OS were supported.

Sadly, all older Photoshop CS versions went up in price 200-500% when Adobe quit offering owned versions, making boxed versions somewhat rare. I remember when you could grab copies of CS versions for about $90, but the cheapest I see now is about 3x that amount ($250 range).

Check Amazon and eBay for pricing.

GIMP is not very user friendly.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Please Like Us on Facebook | Follow Us on Twitter

- Need a good web host? Ask me for help! Get the shared, VPS, semi-dedicated, cloud, or reseller you need.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank kpmedia for this useful post: sanlyn (05-05-2017)
  #9  
05-05-2017, 09:19 AM
suedue suedue is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tx
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
All of the negatives of these photos are long gone. The child in that photo turned 33 yesterday. The scanner I'm using is the one with my HP8600 Officejet Pro, all-in-one printer. It is what I have available, and I am not knowledgeable enough about photo editing, nor do I have a lot of money to invest in having these photographs professionally corrected.

It was really interesting to (try) follow your discussions of the merits of which PS version and what the problem might be. I appreciate all of you taking the time to follow up on this. I think I'll try for grayscale on all the 'red' photos and leave it at that.

You've all been very helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
05-11-2017, 09:36 PM
BeerOnABeach BeerOnABeach is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Fairfield Bay, AR
Posts: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The physical scanner in your 8600 is OK for this. I have one and use it once in awhile.

The real problem is the software. HP software is horrible. Windows software for scanning is also horrible.

Download VueScan and try it. It's kind of hard to get used to. The interface is difficult, but once you figure it out you will get far, far better scans.

Here's a link to the software, with some info about scanning with the HP8600

https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/hp_officejet_8600.html

Do preview, and play with the built-in color correction tools, before doing your "final" scan.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
05-11-2017, 09:41 PM
kpmedia's Avatar
kpmedia kpmedia is offline
Site Staff | Web Hosting, Photo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,241
Thanked 354 Times in 332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerOnABeach View Post
Download VueScan and try it. It's kind of hard to get used to.
It uses a professional-style scanning interface. Epson, Nikon and Kodak are all very similar, and is (mostly) what I've used for the past 20 years. Unlike Silverfast (the competing pro scanner software), Vuescan is pretty dummy-friendly yet intuitive. I use Vuescan for all of my slide and negative scanning. Epson for flatbed work.

Worth trying.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Please Like Us on Facebook | Follow Us on Twitter

- Need a good web host? Ask me for help! Get the shared, VPS, semi-dedicated, cloud, or reseller you need.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
05-11-2017, 09:54 PM
suedue suedue is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tx
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thank you for your input. It may be worth a try. I appreciate your taking the time to reply.

Susan
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magenta Motion Blur koberulz Restore, Filter, Improve Quality 1 03-15-2017 02:40 PM
Need JVC DR-M100 inside pictures videonut Video Hardware Repair 8 05-20-2014 05:05 PM
Before/After Pictures plugin updated for WordPress 3.4.2+ [DOWNLOAD] kpmedia Website and Server Troubleshooting 0 09-26-2012 10:31 PM
Making DVD from Pictures scogdell Author, Make Menus, Slideshows, Burn 4 04-10-2008 11:08 PM
40GB of pictures... Best way to store? emokid Photo Cameras: Buying & Shooting 4 08-17-2006 12:14 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 PM