Retouching old B&W - is there a preferred sequence of edits?

[PandD]

I have recently started scanning and cataloguing 3 generations of photos. Of course, the oldies are all black and white and it is predominate into the mid-70s. It is all prints - negatives were tossed at some point.

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software. For 80% of the photos, this is good enough for the family history. But, for 1 in 5, the quality of the composition or the subject matter, I want to increase the quality - primarily removing scratches, speckles and other blemishes and, for some, improve the lighting as they are quite dark.

I have Paintshop Pro 2023 so that is my tool of choice. I am often happy enough with the results - but sometimes the result almost looks worse than the original with a lot of blurriness and small artefacts.

Being new to editing, I am sure my approach and workflow can use improvements (and may change my "happy enough" to "very happy". For those prints, I decide to invest time in editing, I do the following:

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

 

[Babine]

Can you post one of your projects? .. with a description of what you would like to see in the end results?

 

[ishwanu]

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software.

Which scanner? Is the software Epson Scan or Epson Scan 2?

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

Why all settings turned off? Some of the settings are there to obtain a better result.

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

600 is usually enough for any typical print, but you can go higher if you don't mind the increased file sizes.

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

Is despeckling dust removal or something else?

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

If by grayscale you mean 8-bit single channel, I find it's safer to stick with 8-bit three channel even when there's no color information. Some software displays 8-bit single channel files with incorrect tonality.

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

I see nothing wrong with the order of operations.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I have recently started scanning and cataloguing 3 generations of photos. Of course, the oldies are all black and white and it is predominate into the mid-70s. It is all prints - negatives were tossed at some point.

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software. For 80% of the photos, this is good enough for the family history. But, for 1 in 5, the quality of the composition or the subject matter, I want to increase the quality - primarily removing scratches, speckles and other blemishes and, for some, improve the lighting as they are quite dark.

I have Paintshop Pro 2023 so that is my tool of choice. I am often happy enough with the results - but sometimes the result almost looks worse than the original with a lot of blurriness and small artefacts.

Being new to editing, I am sure my approach and workflow can use improvements (and may change my "happy enough" to "very happy". For those prints, I decide to invest time in editing, I do the following:

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

I can understand an all 'color' workflow, even for B&W images, because sometimes something won't play nicely with true B&W files. But insofar as you're exporting your edits in grayscale, IMO you might as well just scan in that too. It will reduce your file size 67% without reducing quality.

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

I pretty much guaranty that you have no prints with meaningful 1200 ppi detail. In fact, I think 600 ppi is almost certainly always more than enough bordering on overkill. At most you're resolving grain, and in many cases probably just making bloat. IMO if scan 'normal' prints at 300 ppi and contact prints or other really high-quality prints at 600 ppi, then you'll be doing all you practicably can.

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

There is no such thing as adjusting lighting--that ship sailed when the photo was taken. If you mean adjusting the overall lightness of the photo, then IMO usually you'll do better with the curves tool. IMO for most photos--there are certainly exceptions--you want to adjust the black point so that the darkest shadows are maximum black and the brightest highlights are maximum white. Then you might want to change the curve in between e.g. by pulling the center a bit up and left for overall lightening, down and right for overall darkening, imposing an S for increased midtone contrast, etc. If you mean adjusting the lightness of one area of the photo with a local edit, that can be worthwhile.

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

See above. Over the decades I've occasionally found that grayscale images don't work correctly in software that handles color images just fine. I'm not saying don't do it (the files should be smaller for the same quality), or that you'll encounter difficulties.

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

Pretty much all of mine are inline above.

Good luck.

 

[PandD]

Can you post one of your projects? .. with a description of what you would like to see in the end results?

Excellent idea.

The original.


Direct from scan



My edited version:




Edited version

While I have removed most of the white dust/speckles, healed a few scratches and lightened it up, it appears to me that it has picked up a grainy pattern and texture that wasn't there in the original (and wasn't there in real life either as I recall).

As an example - the girls facial skin has lost it's smoothness that was there in the original and her hair has a speckled grain to it now. The textile hanging on the back wall, while lighter and more visible, has a mottled appearance.

Perhaps it is a reality that these are just some of the limitations of digitizing old prints.



I appreciate any insights.



Michael

 

[PandD]

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software.

Which scanner? Is the software Epson Scan or Epson Scan 2?

Epson Perfection V550. Running Windows so it is Epson Scan

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

Why all settings turned off? Some of the settings are there to obtain a better result.

I do use the scanner settings if I am going to skip any editing. Through various online blogs, it is my understanding that it is best to not have the scanned do any processing if I will process it in an editor anyway. May not be accurate advice....

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

600 is usually enough for any typical print, but you can go higher if you don't mind the increased file sizes.

This is another one where I find conflicting advice on the web (the beauty of the internet - so much information, so many varying opinions). Some advice is to give the editor more to work with so crank up the resolution and if I want to crop and print a 5"x7" I need to have enough MP. I realize though that this extra resolution isn't really there in the original.

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

Is despeckling dust removal or something else?

It is dust removal - one sets the size between 1 and 9 pixels and a contrast detection range. I would expect PhotoShop has something similar but with a different name.

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

If by grayscale you mean 8-bit single channel, I find it's safer to stick with 8-bit three channel even when there's no color information. Some software displays 8-bit single channel files with incorrect tonality.

Okay - that is useful.

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

I see nothing wrong with the order of operations.

I appreciate the feedback.

Michael

 

[PandD]

I have recently started scanning and cataloguing 3 generations of photos. Of course, the oldies are all black and white and it is predominate into the mid-70s. It is all prints - negatives were tossed at some point.

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software. For 80% of the photos, this is good enough for the family history. But, for 1 in 5, the quality of the composition or the subject matter, I want to increase the quality - primarily removing scratches, speckles and other blemishes and, for some, improve the lighting as they are quite dark.

I have Paintshop Pro 2023 so that is my tool of choice. I am often happy enough with the results - but sometimes the result almost looks worse than the original with a lot of blurriness and small artefacts.

Being new to editing, I am sure my approach and workflow can use improvements (and may change my "happy enough" to "very happy". For those prints, I decide to invest time in editing, I do the following:

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

I can understand an all 'color' workflow, even for B&W images, because sometimes something won't play nicely with true B&W files. But insofar as you're exporting your edits in grayscale, IMO you might as well just scan in that too. It will reduce your file size 67% without reducing quality.

Good perspective. That makes rational sense to me.

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

I pretty much guaranty that you have no prints with meaningful 1200 ppi detail. In fact, I think 600 ppi is almost certainly always more than enough bordering on overkill. At most you're resolving grain, and in many cases probably just making bloat. IMO if scan 'normal' prints at 300 ppi and contact prints or other really high-quality prints at 600 ppi, then you'll be doing all you practicably can.

Yes, there is no more detail than 300 - 600 in the print. It just seems so easy to "create" more by checking a box in the scanner software - I guess I am just fooling myself at the expense of time and storage.

To later crop and make a larger print, upsizing in an editor will likely give me as good - or better - result as the scanner (and only on the few I want as opposed to all of them).

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

There is no such thing as adjusting lighting--that ship sailed when the photo was taken. If you mean adjusting the overall lightness of the photo, then IMO usually you'll do better with the curves tool. IMO for most photos--there are certainly exceptions--you want to adjust the black point so that the darkest shadows are maximum black and the brightest highlights are maximum white. Then you might want to change the curve in between e.g. by pulling the center a bit up and left for overall lightening, down and right for overall darkening, imposing an S for increased midtone contrast, etc. If you mean adjusting the lightness of one area of the photo with a local edit, that can be worthwhile.

Very useful advice. Will work with that.

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

See above. Over the decades I've occasionally found that grayscale images don't work correctly in software that handles color images just fine. I'm not saying don't do it (the files should be smaller for the same quality), or that you'll encounter difficulties.

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

Pretty much all of mine are inline above.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Michael

 

[ishwanu]

Can you post one of your projects? .. with a description of what you would like to see in the end results?

Excellent idea.

The original.


Direct from scan

My edited version:


Edited version

While I have removed most of the white dust/speckles, healed a few scratches and lightened it up, it appears to me that it has picked up a grainy pattern and texture that wasn't there in the original (and wasn't there in real life either as I recall).

As an example - the girls facial skin has lost it's smoothness that was there in the original and her hair has a speckled grain to it now. The textile hanging on the back wall, while lighter and more visible, has a mottled appearance.

What happened is that by raising the shadows, you've made the noise more visible. This is complicated by the fact that the children themselves are almost entirely in shadow.

Perhaps it is a reality that these are just some of the limitations of digitizing old prints.

It depends a great deal on the condition of the print itself, which you can't really show, and the scanner settings, which might not have been optimal. If the print is actually as dark as seen in the first example, maybe raising the shadows was necessary.

Was the dust stuck permanently into the print, or could it have been minimized with more careful cleaning?

I appreciate any insights.

I made four changes to your edited version: noise reduction, slight re-darkening of the shadows overall to restore some contrast, a gradient mask along the right side to fix the apparent fading there, and desaturation to remove the slight green tint. Perhaps you consider it an improvement ...


My changes

 

[ishwanu]

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software.

Which scanner? Is the software Epson Scan or Epson Scan 2?

Epson Perfection V550. Running Windows so it is Epson Scan

Good. I have the V500, which also uses Epson Scan 2. I much prefer that software to v2.

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

Why all settings turned off? Some of the settings are there to obtain a better result.

I do use the scanner settings if I am going to skip any editing. Through various online blogs, it is my understanding that it is best to not have the scanned do any processing if I will process it in an editor anyway. May not be accurate advice....

It has always been my preference to make the scan itself close to the end result if I can.

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

600 is usually enough for any typical print, but you can go higher if you don't mind the increased file sizes.

This is another one where I find conflicting advice on the web (the beauty of the internet - so much information, so many varying opinions). Some advice is to give the editor more to work with so crank up the resolution and if I want to crop and print a 5"x7" I need to have enough MP. I realize though that this extra resolution isn't really there in the original.

I understand that opinions vary on that.

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

Is despeckling dust removal or something else?

It is dust removal - one sets the size between 1 and 9 pixels and a contrast detection range. I would expect PhotoShop has something similar but with a different name.

Sure, there are a number of different approaches to dust removal - some better than others.

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

If by grayscale you mean 8-bit single channel, I find it's safer to stick with 8-bit three channel even when there's no color information. Some software displays 8-bit single channel files with incorrect tonality.

Okay - that is useful.

Just to be clear, I do desaturate the results because I don't want tinted B&W.

 

[PMB]

I have recently started scanning and cataloguing 3 generations of photos. Of course, the oldies are all black and white and it is predominate into the mid-70s. It is all prints - negatives were tossed at some point.

Funny, I'm doing something similar. Stuff I shot on 35mm back in the mid '70s. But in my case I have the negatives, although they did suffer some degradation over time.

I was a teenager then and I guess I rebelled at wearing my eye glasses so I am finding that looking at these on a big screen now the focus is often terrible. And I am also reminded how much better current cameras are. I like to make prints and much of this stuff I can only print on 8 by 10, but I did find a couple that nicely print to 11 by 14.

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software. For 80% of the photos, this is good enough for the family history. But, for 1 in 5, the quality of the composition or the subject matter, I want to increase the quality - primarily removing scratches, speckles and other blemishes and, for some, improve the lighting as they are quite dark.

I tried a Canon CanoScan 9000F but was disappointed with what could be done with 35mm and how long it took. I have scanned larger prints and had pretty good success. But for 35mm now I use a JJC Digital Film Adapter on my macro lens - much better than the Canon flatbed scanner, and much faster too.

I have Paintshop Pro 2023 so that is my tool of choice. I am often happy enough with the results - but sometimes the result almost looks worse than the original with a lot of blurriness and small artefacts.

Being new to editing, I am sure my approach and workflow can use improvements (and may change my "happy enough" to "very happy". For those prints, I decide to invest time in editing, I do the following:

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

As I said I shoot directly to NEF file with my Nikon Z8 which give me about 50MB to play with.

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

I use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Photoshop for printing

a. Crop and/or straighten

Yes, and then convert from negative to positive - I've saved a preset (actually several presets) to make this easier. Then I quickly use the Curves adjustment to pull the white point and black point to better positions.

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

I use spot healing brush in ACR, and again in Photoshop if I am going to make a print.

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

And then, if I intend to do something more, I spend extra effort with the Light sliders Effects which work backwards (up is down, left is right, etc.) because I am dealing with a converted negative image.

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

Sharpening is a bit problematic for me. Mostly the macro lens and 50MB files produce an incredibly sharp image already, and any additional sharpening just aggravates the grain and doesn't improve the image detail. I am more likely to paly a bit with noise reduction but even that is a challenge as the grain is too darn big.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

here's a sample, before and after.



Peter

PS, and maybe a close up to show the kind of detail...

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I have recently started scanning and cataloguing 3 generations of photos. Of course, the oldies are all black and white and it is predominate into the mid-70s. It is all prints - negatives were tossed at some point....

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

Using what you posted as "The original", here's my quick attempt:



Mostly I used the curves tool:



I moved the black point from 0 to 20 so that just a little of the image was full black and the darker tones darker, and likewise moved the white point from 255 to 245 so that just a little of the image was full white. I pulled most of the curve up and to the left to overall brighten, and put a little inflection point in the deep shadows to keep them a bit darker.

It was not real B&W, having to my eyes a green tone, so I set saturation to -100 (minimum).

I did a local adjustment on the girl's face, to brighten the shadows. I don't think there's enough light / real detail on the other child's face to bring out any real detail.

I did some spotting for dust and scratches, but far short of a full job.

All work done in DxO PhotoLab 8.3.1 Elite.

 

[Night Pixel]

Can you post one of your projects? .. with a description of what you would like to see in the end results?

Excellent idea.

The original.


Direct from scan

My edited version:


Edited version

While I have removed most of the white dust/speckles, healed a few scratches and lightened it up, it appears to me that it has picked up a grainy pattern and texture that wasn't there in the original (and wasn't there in real life either as I recall).

As an example - the girls facial skin has lost it's smoothness that was there in the original and her hair has a speckled grain to it now. The textile hanging on the back wall, while lighter and more visible, has a mottled appearance.

Perhaps it is a reality that these are just some of the limitations of digitizing old prints.

I appreciate any insights.

Michael

Photoshop 2025 (Beta)

Applied Neural Filter Photo Restoration and Camera Raw Filter







--
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." - Diane Arbus

 

[Major Jack]

I have recently started scanning and cataloguing 3 generations of photos. Of course, the oldies are all black and white and it is predominate into the mid-70s. It is all prints - negatives were tossed at some point.

I am using an Epson flatbed scanner with the Epson software. For 80% of the photos, this is good enough for the family history. But, for 1 in 5, the quality of the composition or the subject matter, I want to increase the quality - primarily removing scratches, speckles and other blemishes and, for some, improve the lighting as they are quite dark.

Dust, scratches and noise are common with scans. Pretty easily fixed in Photoshop, in most cases. The Dust and Scratches is good for this.

I have Paintshop Pro 2023 so that is my tool of choice. I am often happy enough with the results - but sometimes the result almost looks worse than the original with a lot of blurriness and small artefacts.

I am not familiar with Paintshop Pro, but I assume it has some of the same capabilities as Photoshop, maybe not as complex.

Being new to editing, I am sure my approach and workflow can use improvements (and may change my "happy enough" to "very happy". For those prints, I decide to invest time in editing, I do the following:

1. Scan to TIFF 24 bit color with all scanner settings turned off

2. Scan at 600, 800 or 1200 dpi depending on the size of the original (smaller = higher resolution)

I would pretty much always scan at HIGHEST resolution. You can always downsize the file in Post Processing, but getting the most data possible when Scanning will help you with Post Processing and what you can accomplish.

3. The sequence in Paintshop is:

a. Crop and/or straighten

b. Apply automated despeckling to the whole image (when warranted)

Be careful not to go to far and soften the image.

c. Manually use a healing and/or clone brush for remaining blemishes

d. Adjust lighting (when needed)

e. Sharpen - usually the whole image, but occasionally just faces.

f. Save a copy as a greyscale JPEG to share

Your choice, but I would save as a .psd file, or .tiff file. Uncompressed!! You can always create a .jpg later if you just want to post online. I save all of my raw files, and after I am done post processing, I save as. psd, or .tiff files. If I ever want to share a file, I convert a DUPLICATE copy of those files to .jpg. But, I keep the .psd or .tiff files for further post processing if necessary.

I will appreciate any and all commentary, suggestions and questions.

Post any and all Photos you want help with, if you are willing. Many people here enjoying helping.

Have a GREAT day.

 

[PandD]

Can you post one of your projects? .. with a description of what you would like to see in the end results?

Excellent idea.

The original.


Direct from scan

My edited version:


Edited version

While I have removed most of the white dust/speckles, healed a few scratches and lightened it up, it appears to me that it has picked up a grainy pattern and texture that wasn't there in the original (and wasn't there in real life either as I recall).

As an example - the girls facial skin has lost it's smoothness that was there in the original and her hair has a speckled grain to it now. The textile hanging on the back wall, while lighter and more visible, has a mottled appearance.

What happened is that by raising the shadows, you've made the noise more visible. This is complicated by the fact that the children themselves are almost entirely in shadow.

Thanks for the insight.

Perhaps it is a reality that these are just some of the limitations of digitizing old prints.

It depends a great deal on the condition of the print itself, which you can't really show, and the scanner settings, which might not have been optimal. If the print is actually as dark as seen in the first example, maybe raising the shadows was necessary.

Was the dust stuck permanently into the print, or could it have been minimized with more careful cleaning?

I scanned this a couple times after cleaning (rocket air and a photo brush) and it seems either the dust was part of the print or the negative as the results were about the same with the dust marks being in the same place and size.

I appreciate any insights.

I made four changes to your edited version: noise reduction, slight re-darkening of the shadows overall to restore some contrast, a gradient mask along the right side to fix the apparent fading there, and desaturation to remove the slight green tint. Perhaps you consider it an improvement ...


My changes

I do and knowing the techniques you used is very helpful!



Michael