Now, here's a daft sounding question. :o)

I've got an old photo from the 50's that I need to restore. It's a bit
faded and has several orange-ish blotches, but this is basically a dust
and scratches job.

The thing is, the photo has a slight discolouration. My instinctive
reaction was, well, this was taken as a black and white shot, so any
colour in there must be discolouration. But moving the saturation slider
right down to zero makes the photo look a bit flat. There's something
not right, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

So, my first question is, are black and white photos by definition all
shades of grey, or do they actually have a hint of colour in them?

--
<a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
http://www.derekfountain.org/

Go here and check out the current challenge
http://www.curvemeister.com/Challenge/

It's a color photo where almost all the dyes are faded out. There is
something called split toning where different values are toned with
different chemicals. This usually makes a photograph lasts longer...and
yours isn't so old really.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:43a55cc1$0$1463$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> Now, here's a daft sounding question. :o)
>
> I've got an old photo from the 50's that I need to restore. It's a bit
> faded and has several orange-ish blotches, but this is basically a dust
> and scratches job.
>
> The thing is, the photo has a slight discolouration. My instinctive
> reaction was, well, this was taken as a black and white shot, so any
> colour in there must be discolouration. But moving the saturation slider
> right down to zero makes the photo look a bit flat. There's something not
> right, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.
>
> So, my first question is, are black and white photos by definition all
> shades of grey, or do they actually have a hint of colour in them?
>
> --
> <a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
> http://www.derekfountain.org/

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:43a55cc1$0$1463$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> The thing is, the photo has a slight discolouration. My instinctive
> reaction was, well, this was taken as a black and white shot, so any
> colour in there must be discolouration.

It is possibly discoloration due to a rushed printing job (not thoroughly
washed, or possibly fixed).  It could also be intentional toning.  If it's a
little snapshot, it's probably the former.

You might enjoy the outcome if you convert it to monochrome, then play with
mode-duotone or mode-tritones.

In article <43a55cc1$0$1463$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:

> The thing is, the photo has a slight discolouration. My instinctive
> reaction was, well, this was taken as a black and white shot, so any
> colour in there must be discolouration. But moving the saturation slider
> right down to zero makes the photo look a bit flat. There's something
> not right, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

Probably contrast, which you can adjust by Image->Adjust->Curves. (Avoid
Image->Adjust->Brightness/Contrast; it degrades the quality of the image
by clipping hilight and shadow detail.)

>So, my first question is, are black and white photos by definition all
>shades of grey, or do they actually have a hint of colour in them?

A neutral-tone black and white photograph is shades of gray, and has no
color in it.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tacitr-99ACB0.15353019122005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com...

> A neutral-tone black and white photograph is shades of gray, and has no
> color in it.

As usual, tacit is correct - but some old B&W photos are stained due to
negligence during processing.  This is important - if you have stained B&W,
do not change the mode to 'monochrome' until you think you are done because
you can use curves to match them to the gray tone they should be.
Desaturating alone won't always do the trick.

If we are lucky, the Curvemeister will chime in here with specific help.

(sorry for nit-picking tacit)

tacit wrote:
> In article <43a55cc1$0$1463$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
>  Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> Probably contrast, which you can adjust by Image->Adjust->Curves. (Avoid
> Image->Adjust->Brightness/Contrast; it degrades the quality of the image
> by clipping hilight and shadow detail.)
>
> 
>
>
> A neutral-tone black and white photograph is shades of gray, and has no
> color in it.
>

Except when you tone the B&W print. In the old days, I toned most of my
B&W prints. This was to help preserve the print. (I thought I was making
art that needed to last for at least a century. <ha> )

I can't remember any toners that didn't leave some color to the B&W
print. They would often improve the richness of the print. So it was
part of the process to enhance the picture.

I guess I did so much of that during the wet years that I've continued
into the Photoshop darkroom. I still "tone" all my B&W prints by making
them duotones. This looks good to me and it improves the picture. Well,
it uses the color inks to make a smoother print.

Clyde

"Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
news:sNCdneKNx6TUuTXenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Except when you tone the B&W print. In the old days, [...]

Hold on, Partner. We ain't dead yet. We still tone images the 'old' way.

I read something recently...maybe at luminous landscape...that indicated
that my printer, don't know about others, the Epson 2200, uses all the inks
even when printing a BW image. This gives better tones, but can leave a
cast. So, I duotone so I can control the cast should I prefer a warm tone or
a cold one.

Note that in the prehistoric days of wet processes not all toning gave as
strong an effect as sepia. I have used selium and gold, both of which are
cold and rich..but not strong.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
news:sNCdneKNx6TUuTXenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> tacit wrote: 
>
> Except when you tone the B&W print. In the old days, I toned most of my
> B&W prints. This was to help preserve the print. (I thought I was making
> art that needed to last for at least a century. <ha> )
>
> I can't remember any toners that didn't leave some color to the B&W print.
> They would often improve the richness of the print. So it was part of the
> process to enhance the picture.
>
> I guess I did so much of that during the wet years that I've continued
> into the Photoshop darkroom. I still "tone" all my B&W prints by making
> them duotones. This looks good to me and it improves the picture. Well, it
> uses the color inks to make a smoother print.
>
> Clyde

Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> "Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
> news:sNCdneKNx6TUuTXenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> 
>
>
> Hold on, Partner. We ain't dead yet. We still tone images the 'old' way.
>
>

Ah, you are getting rarer and rarer. I dumped all my "wet" stuff on eBay
about 3 years ago. I was using Photoshop for many years before that and
finally made the move. I have not regretted it for a minute.

There always will be someone doing "wet" photography. In the history of
art, no new media has eliminated any old media. Of course, the old media
may not have much of a market; hence Kodak's ending of B&W paper
manufacturing.

There will always be companies like "Photographer's Formulary" that will
have the stuff you need to do the old, out-of-market processes. It may
cost you to buy supplies in such a small market, but the dedicated nut
won't mind.

New technology might even help the old. I never shot bigger than a 4x5
camera. That doesn't make very big platinum prints. I've been tempted to
get a platinum kit and frame and make some platinum prints from digital
negatives. That is something that I really couldn't do before.

Clyde

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:23:08 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
>news:43a55cc1$0$1463$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> 
>
>It is possibly discoloration due to a rushed printing job (not thoroughly
>washed, or possibly fixed).  It could also be intentional toning.  If it's 
a
>little snapshot, it's probably the former.
>
>You might enjoy the outcome if you convert it to monochrome, then play with
>mode-duotone or mode-tritones.
>
>

Ya. Converting to Monotone and touching up might be the only way to
go.