Your techiques for removing specular from photos

L
Posted By
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
Views
2998
Replies
21
Status
Closed
I’m curious to hear what techniques other people would use in this case:

Not having a scanner, I photographed some old photos. Unfortunately, some of them have a ‘spray’ of white specular reflections/hightlights from the light source in the room (where I photographed them) are hitting the texture of the photograph. As a result, there’s some areas that have what ends up looking like snow/dust scattered over the photo.

For the dark areas, I use a burn tool set for highlights. That seems to work fine (since there’s such a strong difference between the dark photo areas vs the very bright specular dots.

But, for areas like faces (midtones) that doesn’t work… So I’m curious what methods you guys would use.

Chances are, I’m just going to re-photograph them… but it’s a good exercise in photo restoration, and a fun(?) challenge.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 7, 2009
The best ‘exercise in photo restoration’ is to capture the image in the best possible manner. Scan these. Even a cheap consumer scanner can do a better job than shooting with the highest end camera. ‘Photo restoration’ is meant to restore imperfections of the photo itself. It is not to be wasted on correcting your own imperfections caused during capture.
L
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
Hi, Jim. No, you misunderstand…. It’s not about me ‘wasting time’ or being forced to use my camera… I’m just curious how one WOULD remove something like that… be it specular from light hitting the texture of a photo, or dust (which WOULD still appear with a scanner) from midtone areas of a photo.
RK
Rob_Keijzer
Jan 7, 2009
Laer,

The only way to remove the speculars and reveil what’s on the photo is by reshooting without the worst possible lighting.

Try to soften/bounce the light.

I think it’s beside the order to first put on a terrible lighting, and then come here and ask for high tech post process removal.

No offence though, you are ever so welcome to ask away here. 🙂

Rob
QP
Q_Photo
Jan 7, 2009
Check out Polaroid on line. They have a free dust and scratch plugin. 32 bit only. Q
RK
Rob_Keijzer
Jan 7, 2009
Q,

Does the Pola D&S filter work in CS4? I hve it for a long time, but mine stopped in CS4. (the preview is black).

Rob
L
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
Hi, J Maloney. Ya, that’s certainly one way to do it. CS3’s dust removal tools in general have improved since my old version(PS5.5!). Previous methods were mostly blurs, and although they worked, they were pretty brutal towards the sharpness of your image. The ones I find in CS3 are pleasantly more ‘intelligent’.

In this particular case, the usual tools are not doing the trick, though. It’s admit tingly a very tough scenario. Specifically, a rather strong lamp off to the side is creating bright speculars on the raised texture of part of the photo. Too many dots for a clone brush, and too strong for the usual dust removal tools.

Seems in this case, I would need to somehow identify the midtone colour, and identify the specular colour, and have it replace the second with the first… Change Colour filter? Something I should try, I guess.

I wasn’t sure if it was something I could do with Curves…. (identify one luminosity, and pull it down to another to match the underlying midtone). I’m still a bit new/confused with curves, as I always avoided them in the past. I guess I could tinker with it and see.

Hi, Rob… I’m not sure how else to put this. I’m not trying to ask how to best scan/photograph an image, or what is the best thing for me to do to import and restore photos. The specifics of the situation are irrelevant. I’m asking a HYPOTHETICAL… getting a collection of how others might removed white highlight dots (like dust, but bigger)… Some may have methods to blur it… Some may have methods to pull the luminance down to the underlying image’s luminance…

Yes, I know that I SHOULD use proper lighting… or use a scanner rather than a camera… but this is not what I’m asking, nor am I blaming Adobe, Photoshop, the world, or anything for what you guys seem to be interpreting me as claiming to be a failure of the process. I’m simply looking at these photos, seeing a little challenge, and (having not been able to remove them) being curious how others would address removing them (not how to address the whole digitizing process beforehand).

It’s like me asking about how to brighten a photo in Photoshop (wanting to learn about the software’s tonal tools), and people saying that I should take better photos in the first place…. It’s not the point of the question.
JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 7, 2009
or use a scanner rather than a camera

Not necessarily. I missed the part about photo texture in the original post. A typical scanner could produce the same problem. Look to the light stand concept then where you can balance the light perfectly on either side of the paper texture. A single lamp is not suited for this task.

To expand on J’s link for a great function with GIMP, you can also google for ‘FFT Photoshop’ for a similar function in Photoshop. You can use this if the photo paper texture makes the highlights look more coherent/ordered than chaotic/random.
L
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
Hello everyone…

Yes, photographing them more carefully is certainly a solution for the ‘big picture’, although again I’m just asking what COULD you do if this was what you had, and had to deal with it in photoshop…

It’s not so much that I HAVE to fix these in Photoshop… I’m just curious about how one could… hoping for some fun/clever little methods that some users might share…. That’s all.

As for the reality of the situation, I’m just going to re-digitize them… and if it’s a huge problem still, just get them scanned. But I’m not stressed about it, and that’s not what I’m asking about.

Hell, I just shot these handheld, using a cheap floor lamp off to the side! So, it’s a wonder the photos came out usable at all!

Just a challenging ‘puzzle’ I was pondering….

BTW, I managed to isolate the speculars using levels… but not sure what I could do with that. I was hoping to use it as a mask or something for some dust removal filter that would be otherwise too strong for the whole photo.

BUT, so far, I found the Spot Heal tool to actually work pretty well for it (…although I’d probably go insane clicking on each of the specs!)

Thanks for the other plugin recommends! I’ll take a look. Again, it’s not that I’m in some emergency here… Just curious.
L
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
On a similar note…

Some photos I photographed exhibit an odd ‘honeycomb’ type pattern in them (…I think maybe those are Polaroid instant photos). Anyone ever deal with getting rid of that pattern somehow? I tried various Smart Blurs, but didn’t get anywhere…
O
Ozzwoman9
Jan 7, 2009
I once had a hundred+ year old photo that I had to restore (like 1/2 the face was missing and there was dots everywhere). I could not take the old photo out of the frame as it would have damaged it, so I took a picture of it with my digital camera on my highest resolution settings.

In PS I went through and mainly used the clone tool to fix the spots on the photo (granted I was using PS 7 at the time, there is this nice thing called the healing tool, etc. now). Anyway, that’s my usual method and it takes time as you have to ‘fix’ each dot separately.

I also like to select a similar color and set the brush opacity at say 25% or so and then color over any imperfections using that method when the clone stamp just doesn’t cut it.

Anyway, my photo turned out great and I can even have it enlarged to 24"x24" and the quality still looks better then the original probable did when it was 1st taken.
L
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
Interesting… I never thought of creating a greyscale first.

Ya, I’ve been using the clonebrush in ways that would make many people cringe! Not in the technique, but in the amount!

I’ve photographed about 211 old photos (for a present I’m making my parents for their 50th anniversary), and brought each one into PS and (using mostly the clone brush) hand cleaned each one… in some cases, totally rebuilding parts of the photo that were ripped badly or altogether missing.

It wasn’t until recently that I tinkered with the new CS3 dirt tools/filters, and found them surprisingly effective (compared to earlier versions). Still, as much work as it is, I still kind of like hand cleaning it, as opposed to using a global filter (unless it’s clear that it’s only affecting the dirt). Still, the spot heal works a lot better (and is more useful) than I had assumed. In the worst cases of my images (like the specular dots I mention in this thread), there’s not really enough room to grab a background source for the clone brush, but the heal brush does a pretty good job! I suppose I could just zoom in to select clone sources, but now why bother when the spot heal works so well automatically? Ah, well… I still have many photos to clean anyway! I can at least use these new discoveries there…
O
Ozzwoman9
Jan 7, 2009
I tend to do photo touchups as gifts too. And I once had to delete a 3rd party out of a picture for an Anniversary gift as well.

One thing I have found easier….if the photo was originally taken at a studio of some sorts and has that generic background (you know a blue/gray background with a radial gradient), I like to select that whole background and delete it, then make a whole new gradient with a similar color, then blend the edges of the focal image into the background. For me that is quicker and looks better in the end.
JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 7, 2009
an odd ‘honeycomb’ type pattern

Revisit the previous posts about the GIMP and Photoshop FFT plugins.

It’s not so much that I HAVE to fix these in Photoshop… I’m just curious about how one could.

One would not, ever. This is why you are not getting your satisfactory answer. A photo restoration artist would never capture an image in such a reckless manner. There is no magic paint brush to make stuff up in Photoshop. If there is a glare in a photo, you have to paint in what you believe should be there. A glare does not cover up anything that can be digitally revealed. A glare wipes out the image entirely. Pull out your paintbrush and prayer book.
L
Laer
Jan 7, 2009
Ozzwoman9: Hehehe… Ya, I did that too! Paid job for someone in my building! They had a photo with 3 people (close together, arms around each other), and I had to get rid of the middle guy! Worked out really well, actually. I even put the side person’s hand on the shoulder of the other side person. A lot of careful clone brushing and cut and paste

I agree with you on the background thing. I’ve done many portraits were I take existing photos, remove the background, and create a completely synthetic background (…usually flowery gardens, or something like that). Most of the time, my background are digitally hand painted.

Jim: I guess you’re not going to see this question as how I intended to ask it. I can’t explain it any other ways, other than to again say I’m asking about techniques for that type of artifact in an image, not how to properly digitize images. As if I’m asking ‘How would you brighten an image in Photoshop?"… I’m asking the technique, not a critique on WHY in my hypothetical question, I would have dim images in the first place. With that kind of philosophy, no one would be able to ask any image alteration questions, as they shouldn’t have ‘incorrect’ images in the first place!

So, how about this new scenario… You have a photo given to you that has people posing during a snowfall. What techniques would you use to remove the snow?

(Why do I suspect you are going to say ‘Contact the owner of the photo, have them reunite the group and reshoot them in different weather…’)
JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 7, 2009
I fully understand your question. You are not understanding the answers given by everyone. I’m not trying to pick on you. If you have a glare on a photo, no plugin, technique, or prayer to a Mayan god will reveal what is supposed to appear under that glare. You need to manually paint in what is missing.

What techniques would you use to remove the snow?

You cannot. Snow does not fall in a pattern that a computer can interpret and filter… just like the random pattern of speckles appearing on your current images. Unless you are excellent with masking, if you attempt some automated function to remove noise in one area of a photo (dust/scratches) the rest of the photo will be harmed by the D&S filter.

GIGO!
L
Laer
Jan 8, 2009
Yes, I realize that you obviously can’t restore what is not there… but you can use methods like sampling from similar or adjacent areas/patterns. Even in this thread, I’ve come up with another possible technique, in pushing the luminance of the speck down to the luminance of the surrounding area.

As far as the snow, I’m not looking for an automated filter… that’s just wishful thinking. It would be impossible, as you say, for the computer to know what is snow, and what isn’t. It’s impressive enough that they can do it with dust. Just seeing if anyone is using a technique that I’m not already (…I’m using clonebrushing, for the most part, as well as the dodge and burn tool if the background is on the opposite end of the luminance spectrum as the specs).

And, again, while what you are saying about GIGO is totally true, and I never would debate that, it’s not what I am asking… it’s only that, in this case, the situation that brought up the question could have been avoided… but it was just a means to a hypothetical question. And, as I said before, if one asks about how to brighten an image in Photoshop, you COULD tell him that he should have exposed it properly in the first place (which is true, but not the question they are asking), or say ‘Use levels, curves, brightness/contrast, etc’. That’s my main ‘issue’ with your responses.

Besides, in the fx world, I often don’t have a CHOICE about the footage I get. Half of the work is often just fixing the footage so that I CAN use it… We’ve had to remove crew members in the past!

And, I’ll tell you… You think snow is bad, try wire manual wire removal in a handheld shot taking place in an extremely complex and long indoor market, with intersecting rafters, banners and cables reseeding into the distance with parallax! Good grief…. (Steven Segal film, for those who care)

Well, like I said, so far the healing brush seems to work for ‘snow’ on midtones, and the burn/dodge for white on black or vice versa…

I’m still thinking that I could isolate the luminance and remap them to the back colour. Managed to get a matte so far…
JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 8, 2009
if one asks about how to brighten an image in Photoshop, you COULD tell him that he should have exposed it properly in the first place (which is true, but not the question they are asking), or say ‘Use levels, curves, brightness/contrast, etc’. That’s my main ‘issue’ with your responses.

If one has the opportunity to expose an image properly and save countless retouching hours, why wouldn’t one? If one uses levels, curves, brightness/contrast after capture, one harms the image. You cannot brighten an image without losing valuable image data elsewhere in the image. The same applies to any other transformation of an image in Photoshop. As the artist, it is your responsibility to know how to best import the image. Understand your tools and best practices. Michaelangelo did not sculpt with a soup spoon and the average Joe could not replicate Michaelangelo’s work if they were given his same tools.

Whether hypothetical or real, you gave a scenario and asked how we’d fix it. Beyond re-capturing, painting/cloning, and using the FFT filters on patterned noise, there is nothing more to do. You could probably get more specific advice if you posted a sample image that you are working with.

I’d avoid dodge and burn as it can introduce an unnatural tonal difference.
QP
Q_Photo
Jan 8, 2009
Rob Keijzer,
I haven’t installed Pola D&S in PsCS4. It’s a new computer and I’m taking things really slowly. I assume it does not work in the 64bit version. I’m sorry to have taken so long to get back to you but I usually only come here early mornings.
Q
DG
Don_Gough
Jan 8, 2009
Your photo should be placed so that your room lighting (if it’s a compact source) should shine on the photo at, say, a 45 degree angle from some distance so as not to have more light on one side of the photo than on the other.

But try this: don’t use the room light. Use flash and position the camera and flash (or just the flash) at an angle to the photo so there is no reflection. Then straighten the perspective on your camera image (in Photoshop) so the photo is square again. You will lose resolution a bit when you do that, so make sure your camera uses a resolution greater than you finally want.

vangogh
MR
Mark_Reynolds
Jan 8, 2009
If photography’s already been done … badly, speculars can be retouched out. But for heavens sake don’t use the amateurs dodge and burn tools, use Curves. You can sample specific values and then make a curve that will bring in EXACTLY the color you want, then you paint it in. Sheesh

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections