Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
wow, this turned into the most useful thread to teach me a lot about GIMP. I would'a used the program for a few years and wouldn't have known what you told us. Now to go back to first email and try it all out. Thanks Steve. Dan On 12/28/11, Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net wrote: On 12/27/2011 09:28 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: [ ...a whole bunch of stuff that I mostly left out of this reply, and:] I just don't know how to look at two or more layers on my screen all at once, you in separate display windows. [...] I would feel more comfortable if I could see the thing I am cloning from _and_ the thing I am cloning to, all at once, in two windows on the same screen... In the Layers dialog, click and drag the layer that will be your source for cloning onto the button field on your main toolbox. Boom, a new image opens that IS that layer, only. Select your cloning origin normally by ctrl-clicking on the new image, go to the original image window and start painting with copied pixels. Done? Select the temporary window and close it. P.S. How does one just simply merge two images? I'd really like to see what my img001-inverted.jpg and img001-inverted2.jpg would look like if they were smashed together. (And actually, maybe the combination of those two is the thing that I really want to be cloning from.) Put the two images on two layers, and whichever is on top, dial back that layer's opacity some via the slider in the Layers dialog in the dock where it lives. If you end up looking at a finished image you like but needs some more work, do copy visible (a.k.a. ctrl+shift+c) and paste (a.k.a. ctrl-v), click the new layer button to make the floating selection a real layer, and what you saw is what you get as a single layer - without destroying the layers you were blending together. Note that you can do filters and corrections on a copy of a layer, overdo it a bit on purpose, then adjust the opacity of the altered layer to dial back the effect on the finished image until it looks just right. You can also apply a filter that you only want to use here and there on an image to a whole duplicate layer, add a black layer mask to it, select the black mask, and start to paint on the image with white. This amounts to painting with the filter you applied, just as and where you want it to be applied. Overshot your mark? Try painting over the excess white with black, to sharpen the corners or make the edges go exactly where you want. Undo is one black brush stroke away no matter how many steps back the error in applying the filter to the image was made. kind-of reminds me of my old days, 40 years ago, back in the darkroom when I used to play around with solarizing prints. What fun! Yup, I loves me some electric darkroom action. Not to mention the bargain price for all that electric film! :o) Steve P.S. I should not do this, because you might have too much fun: http://registry.gimp.org/node/13469 Download the version for your OS, extract it from the archive, and drop it into the plug-ins directory wherever your GIMP program files live. Then start the GIMP, open some image or other, and go to Filters G'MIC... 280 filters, nice big preview pane, expect multiple OMFG moments. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
Hey Ronald From what I understand, slides are open to the same kind of degradation that any plastic is, the same thing that we found out that can happen to cds that we thought would live forever. I have a whole family history's worth that I'm afraid to even begin to evaluate, but have to begin eventually. Basically that slide looks like it was next to a heat source or whatever for a while at some time that basically burned the slide along the edge, but overall it looks pretty good. I think a lot of the older slides lose a lot of their info, becoming overall very dark. I don't think there's any underlying information, you're going to basically have to just artistically and painstakingly recreate as close to the original as you can imagine. Search on google for rubber stamp or clone tool in gimp, there are tutorials on youtube. Unless someone else knows a secret tool that can take out that gradient. :) Dan On 12/26/11, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: The following file was generated from a recent scan of a 40 year old 6x7cm color negative: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/img001-b.jpg Despite the fact that the negative in question has been stored for the past 30+ years in a manner that I personally would have judged to be ``safe'', as you can plainly see (and as is also quite evident, just looking at the negative itself) there has been some quite serious degradation of the image. Specifically, the negative has been seriously compromised (by what, I have no idea) in a way that has resulted in a pronounced, large, and diffuse green streak all along the right hand edge of the image. Less obvious, but also apparent upon close inspection, there is also some similar (but less pronounced) green discoloration in a streak along the length of the left hand edge of the image also. If at all possible I would like to use gimp to restore this image back to it's former and original glory. (The image itself means a lot to me personally.) Unfortunately, I'm still very much of a gimp novice. I've mastered some basic retouching techniques, using the airbrush tool, and I've also have dabbled around with the fast Fourier plug-in for gimp (which I found terrifically useful for one project). But really, these few things are about all I know of gimp, other than how to crop with it. So anyway, I'd very much appreciate any advice that anybody would like to share with me about this image. Obviously, my goal is to get rid of the green stripes while (if possible) still preserving as much of the underyling image detail in the discolored parts of the image as possible. (As you can see, there is really quite a lot of image detail underneath those green streaks.) I tried, briefly, using Gimp's built-in destripe function, but that really didn't seem to help much, no matter how I played with the relevant sliders. I also read this page: http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-tool-blend.html about Gimp's blend tool, but that does not sound like it would be at all relevant to this problem. I don't know enough about the heal tool to know if it would be useful for this kind of problem or not (but I suspect not). I also read a little bit about the Wavelet decompose plug-in: http://registry.gimp.org/node/11742 It seems to me like this might possibly be of use in my efforts to kill the green stripes, but I'm not at all sure and would like some advice before proceeding. (I was thinking that maybe the green stripes could be removed by doing a wavelet decompose and then removing then from the residual part of the image. Yes? No?) So anyway, advice would be appreciated. I _could_ just crop the green stripes out, but I really prefer not to. (I would much rather learn more about the multitude of capabilities of the Gimp.) If only there were an airbrush-like tool that allowed one to selectively modify things like color balance, brightness, saturation, and so forth, then I think that I could clean this image up by hand, but gimp don't seem to have such things. :-( Regards, rfg P.S. Before signing up for this list, and before posting here, I read this page about gimp mailing lists: http://www.gimp.org/mail_lists.html I just wanted to say that I found this part most humorous: * Use the English language. English is the official language of the lists. There is people from all around the globe so we use it... Obviously, that's a typo. It should have said There AM people from all around the globe... There. I'm glad that we got that straightened out. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
The GNU Image Manipulation Program will only be able to repair its image by changing its name. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
* Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com [12-26-11 06:03]: The GNU Image Manipulation Program will only be able to repair its image by changing its name. Somehow you completely missed the Subject:. You are welcome to try again! -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
On 12/26/2011 05:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: The following file was generated from a recent scan of a 40 year old 6x7cm color negative: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/img001-b.jpg [...] I'd very much appreciate any advice that anybody would like to share with me about this image. Obviously, my goal is to get rid of the green stripes while (if possible) still preserving as much of the underyling image detail in the discolored parts of the image as possible. (As you can see, there is really quite a lot of image detail underneath those green streaks.) I tried, briefly, using Gimp's built-in destripe function, but that really didn't seem to help much, no matter how I played with the relevant sliders. Hey Ronald, You won't find a one tool or one filter solution for this one. This is a fairly major project. However, rest assured it can be done; check out the first image on this page: http://pilobilus.net/photo_rework.html It's far from perfect but not bad for something I did ten or so years ago with an earlier version of the GIMP, and demonstrates something of what is possible. You face three problems: An unwanted color, an unwanted darkening, and loss of detail. The fact that the areas that need the most work are landscape background is a Good Thing, as you can afford to alter a lot of detail in the affected areas without losing important visual information. First, save your original image as a .xcf file. You will be working on this over several sessions, most likely, and you will need all the state of the image - layers, etc. - intact in the saved image. Every time you have a new bright idea for how to fix part of the image, either save your image then save it with a new name (i.e. with an incremented version number), or create a brand new layer and work on that. This will protect the satisfactory elements of your progress from mishaps. You might want to start by doing what you can with filters. Duplicate your base layer, and select the damaged area. Turn on your Colors Hue / Saturation tool, click on the image, and in the dialog box that appears, select green and dial the saturation down and brightness up until most of the green disappears. This will not fix the image but it carries you part of the way there. Then you might want to select none and get busy with the Clone and Smudge tools, painting in replacements for the lost areas, guided by (but not strictly limited to) the content of the partially restored area. This is what I managed in three or four minutes, nowhere near done of course: http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/4571/img001justastart.jpg As always, there are MANY ways to do things, and you might be able to come much closer to a final repair by using multiple layers, gradient masking, colormap rotation and other advanced filters, etc.; but the above will at least give you lots of exercise with the clone and smudge tools, brush usage, etc., and will (eventually!) give you an image that looks good. For a beginner this is a fairly major hobby project, but as such it is a great training exercise. Play around, find out what tools do what things, and bear in mind that the objective at this stage is not an image that is right in the sense of an exactly faithful reproduction of the original scene, but an image that looks right in the sense that it conveys the general appearance of the scene to the viewer. :o) Steve ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
* Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com [12-26-11 13:03]: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 17:38, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: * Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com [12-26-11 06:03]: The GNU Image Manipulation Program will only be able to repair its image by changing its name. Somehow you completely missed the Subject:. You are welcome to try again! I deliberately misinterpreted the subject. Just a stab at a horrible name for an otherwise terrific application. I'm sure you are a terrific person, also, but the name in no worse in it's stead than Dotan. Or, for that matter, Patrick/paka -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
Oh, thanks for some post holiday friviolity! I always liked the name Gimp, it's in an ironical humorous tone, no? @gerard82 Thanks for the details about slide construction. Very useful, I would have never known. Better look at my own slides soon... On with the Xmas name calling!!! :) Dan On 12/26/11, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: * Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com [12-26-11 13:03]: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 17:38, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: * Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com [12-26-11 06:03]: The GNU Image Manipulation Program will only be able to repair its image by changing its name. Somehow you completely missed the Subject:. You are welcome to try again! I deliberately misinterpreted the subject. Just a stab at a horrible name for an otherwise terrific application. I'm sure you are a terrific person, also, but the name in no worse in it's stead than Dotan. Or, for that matter, Patrick/paka -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
In message 4ef8950f.6050...@pilobilus.net, Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net wrote: Can you recall the specifics of how you tamed the streak? I know that I duplicated the base layer, used a mask to isolate the streak (so that it would be the only visible part of its layer), and applied color corrections to it until it closely matched the un-streaked part of the layer below. Then I merged it down into the base layer and worked on color correction image-wide. The details are lost in the mists of time. You face three problems: An unwanted color, an unwanted darkening, and loss of detail. I'm going to take issue with one small part of what you just said. Specifically, the last part... loss of detail. [...] from where I am sitting, it appears to me that underneath the green streaks there is very nearly just as much detail as in other similar parts of the image. The eye and brain are excellent correction filters and fill in an amazing amount of detail from subtle cues. In the most heavily damaged parts of the image, contrast is very limited. Working carefully on small patches of the image with varous filters and effects I have been able to get nearly perfect brightness and color - but the results are distinctly blurry, in comparison to more or less identical regions that were not heavily damaged. [...] if I just select that whole stripped area and then start fiddling things, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't that likely create some result that is less than optimal for each of the two sub-sections of the stripe (i.e. the lighter part and the darker part)? Right you are. I was only looking for a crude approximation to guide from scratch reconstruction of the damaged area. from where I'm sitting, there is still plenty of _real_ underyling image detail (under the green stripe) that I would sort-of like to preserve, if possible, rather than just paining over or replacing outright with other little chopped up parts of the undamaged background or, God forbid, my own clumsy attempts to hand-paint in some details. (I am as clumsy with a brush as The Hulk is with a sewing needle.) To paraphrase from Mad Max, Accurate detail is a question of time. How much time do you have, how much accurate detail do you want? :o) [...] I understand only a bit about layers. Should I be separating this image into red, green, blue layers and then be attempting my repairs primarily or exclusively on the green layer? Um, nope. Those are channels, not layers. Layers are like multiple images stacked on top of each other. The usefulness of this is largely due to a feature called a layer mask: In the Layers tab of your dialogs dock, layer masks (when present) appear as a second rectangle beside the first, always in black and white. Masks have a stencil like effect: Where a layer's mask is white, the layer is opaque and visible in the finished image (unless it is under another opaque layer in the stack). Where the layer's mask is black, the layer is transparent and invisible in the finished image. Shades of gray are partially visible, the lighter they are the more of the layer shows through. Confused? Don't feel bad, it took me forever and a day to get used to using layers with masks to repair and compose images. But today they seem entirely natural to me and I couldn't live without them. All I can suggest is to find tutorials that make use of layers, work through them, and be persistent until it starts to make sense. Also, if you could give me a one sentence definition/description of gradient masking I'd appreciate it. I probably shouldn't have said that because I am not sure anyone but me uses the term gradient mask. That is when you add a mask to a layer, and make part of that layer blend smoothly into the layer below by using a gradient from black to white on the mask. This results in the layer fading from invisible to fully visible as you move from the black to the white part of the layer mask. Example: Imagine a flash photograph of a line of people on a stage, taken from a seat at the far end of the front row. The people on the end of the stage nearest the camera will be properly exposed, but those at the far end of the stage will be underexposed. Just increasing brightness to bring out the underexposed far-away people makes the ones close up way too bright, with blown out highlights. What do do? Make a copy of the base layer (i.e. the original image) as a new layer, and brighten the whole new layer until the underexposed people at the far end of the stage are clearly visible. Add a mask to the altered layer (right click its thumbnail in the Layers dialog and select Add layer mask). Click on the new mask to select it, then use the Blend tool to fill the layer mask horizontally with a smooth gradient from black to white, making the too-bright people on stage invisible (black end of the gradient), while leaving the previously underexposed people at the far end of the stage fully
