Before & After old photo

[CherylL]

How much is too much? I didn't want to go too far and smooth. I noticed the eyes and eye lids are drawn on in the original photo with a black pen or marker. Was this common back then? 1915

Before & After by Cheryl, on Flickr

 

[smoke665]

Looks good on my small screen. Looks like a hand colored with a dye. Popular around that time period.

 

[waday]

Fantastic!

 

[webestang64]

I noticed the eyes and eye lids are drawn on in the original photo with a black pen or marker. Was this common back then? 1915

Yes. Hand coloring was done with thin oils and some details were added with pencil and/or pen and ink. I do this kind of retouch work professionally and you did do a good job. Only thing you could have done more was to clean up the edges.

Noticed you live near St. Louis, I work for Schiller's Camera.

 

[BillM]

I think it looks great, I like that you didn't go too far over the top with it. Well done !!!!

 

[CherylL]

I noticed the eyes and eye lids are drawn on in the original photo with a black pen or marker. Was this common back then? 1915

Yes. Hand coloring was done with thin oils and some details were added with pencil and/or pen and ink. I do this kind of retouch work professionally and you did do a good job. Only thing you could have done more was to clean up the edges.

Noticed you live near St. Louis, I work for Schiller's Camera.

Thanks for the info! Fascinating how photos were hand painted. I tried to add an elliptical selection to stroke & frame, but couldn't get the selection correct. This would hide the edges.

Schiller's is my favorite store. I've bought 3 cameras from them, numerous lenses, and other gear. I am in the Metro East in Illinois and it is worth the drive to go there for their knowledge. I've traded in gear, bought new and used. All in all happy with the deals.

 

[CherylL]

Looks good on my small screen. Looks like a hand colored with a dye. Popular around that time period.

Fantastic!

I think it looks great, I like that you didn't go too far over the top with it. Well done !!!!

Thanks! Good to know I didn't go too far in the edits.

 

[SquarePeg]

Well done.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Very nice job.

I noticed the eyes and eye lids are drawn on in the original photo with a black pen or marker. Was this common back then? 1915

I think it was standard practice back then, rather than common, to enhance the impression of sharpness and detail.

The problem I've found is that the photo fades far faster then the ink which tends to make it stand out more.
Not wanting to photobomb your example here's the unedited copy of one I did recently from around 1917:

 

[Derrel]

pretty decent restoration.

 

[CherylL]

Well done.

pretty decent restoration.

Thank you!

The problem I've found is that the photo fades far faster then the ink which tends to make it stand out more.

That makes sense why the color is stronger than the ink. Interesting photo you posted. I'd like to see the after if you want to share.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Nice job on the digital restoration. Most likely the photos were tinted using something like these Peerless dyes; they've been around since the late 1800s and are made today. I found some vintage ones and was astounded with how well they blended into a B&W photo (done in chemistry in a darkroom).
Peerless Black & White (Dry) Handcoloring Dye Sheet (Complete Edition Water Color Book) - 15 sheets | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

I don't know of any pens ever used; pencils - yes, those were used I think in the '50s and 60s. I don't know the original size but it would be well, maybe impossible! to trace the eyeline in a photo precisely. I think it's more likely with longer exposures done with earlier cameras that the black parts of the image were black enough to stand up over time, maybe more noticeably than the lighter gray parts. Could be that, or the type of lens, or paper used, etc. - too many variables to know for sure.

You can see where the paper was cut/torn how yellowed/brownish it is. The original paper would have been off white. So the color probably looks somewhat different than it did originally. Of course that adds to the vintage look of it!

 

[CherylL]

Nice job on the digital restoration. Most likely the photos were tinted using something like these Peerless dyes; they've been around since the late 1800s and are made today. I found some vintage ones and was astounded with how well they blended into a B&W photo (done in chemistry in a darkroom).
Peerless Black & White (Dry) Handcoloring Dye Sheet (Complete Edition Water Color Book) - 15 sheets | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

I don't know of any pens ever used; pencils - yes, those were used I think in the '50s and 60s. I don't know the original size but it would be well, maybe impossible! to trace the eyeline in a photo precisely. I think it's more likely with longer exposures done with earlier cameras that the black parts of the image were black enough to stand up over time, maybe more noticeably than the lighter gray parts. Could be that, or the type of lens, or paper used, etc. - too many variables to know for sure.

You can see where the paper was cut/torn how yellowed/brownish it is. The original paper would have been off white. So the color probably looks somewhat different than it did originally. Of course that adds to the vintage look of it!

I worked on a few other old family photos and I always ask myself how much is too much. I like the vintage look too. I wonder if this photo was at one time in one of those curved glass photo frames. I had to use the puppet tool to get the left side to match up.

The close up from the original scan. It looks like it was drawn on for the eyes & lids.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Sure does! Doesn't look quite as precise close up, can see where they sort of doubled back at the outer corners, and maybe touched up the irises too (unless that's aging/deterioration). Usually pens aren't used because you don't want to press into the paper with metal. I don't remember seeing pens meant to be used on photographs at camera swaps, etc., mostly dyes, pencils, etc.

You really did a good job seeing up close how much the finish/gloss and paper deteriorated over time.

 

[webestang64]

The close up from the original scan. It looks like it was drawn on for the eyes & lids.

Yep....pen/ink for those eyes, I see this all the time retouching old photos. Some used charcoal as well. I've also seen gold paint daps for jewelry on very small photos dating back to 1860's.