Gradient Background for Tintype?

mark4man wrote:

People,

Found myself in possession of a tinted tintype of my Great Grandfather (tinted tintypes were typically black & white flash photos onto a black enamel plate; & then colorized in oil paint by a portrait artist. They replaced the earlier "daguerreotypes" around 1860, which were flash photos onto silver coated copper plates.)

I had it scanned by a local digital imaging outfit; & am in the process of a restoration in Photoshop (6.0.) The subject, in the form of a bust (head & upper shoulders) is in OK shape . . . just a few scratches & blemishes.

But the gradient background, in the form of a tall oval around the bust, is largely faded & blemished on the left side. The right side is mostly in tact; & consists of a shaded area around the subject, graduating to a lighter area (which comprises most of the background area); & then fading to a darker shade near the edges of the oval. The original portrait artist did a great job on the gradient blending of the colors.

What I’d like to do (using the original 3 main background colors), is to first isolate the subject; & then create a new gradient background following the blend lines of the original.

Is there a way in Photoshop, using layers, to draw 3 color-filled shaped areas, overlap them along the edges; & then blend the colors together as a gradient? I know it seems simple enough . . . but I’m not sure of the functions involved. If someone could help with this, or point me in the direction of a *layering gradient blend* tutorial, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks much,

mark4man

I think it could be done with just the Gradient tool; no layering required. You can make gradients that use as many colors as you’d like in whatever amounts you need. Double-click in the gradient window in the Options Bar to get Gradient Editor and see what the tool does.

BUT, instead how about making a rectangular marquee that’s thin but tall encompassing the area of best quality original gradient. Ctrl-J to jump this sample to another layer then Transform and pull it out as wide as you need it. Or Alt-Ctl with the Move tool and arrow keys to add to itself horizontally. You may have to do this in different areas due to the elliptical shape but everything will be aligned already if you don’t move it.

Then it’s a matter of getting it into the old area by making a good selection of the bust and using a Layer Mask.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html

mark4man wrote:

People,

Found myself in possession of a tinted tintype of my Great Grandfather (tinted tintypes were typically black & white flash photos onto a black enamel plate; & then colorized in oil paint by a portrait artist. They replaced the earlier "daguerreotypes" around 1860, which were flash photos onto silver coated copper plates.)

For those who are interested, there is a good history here: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/index.html

I had it scanned by a local digital imaging outfit; & am in the process of a restoration in Photoshop (6.0.) The subject, in the form of a bust (head & upper shoulders) is in OK shape . . . just a few scratches & blemishes.

But the gradient background, in the form of a tall oval around the bust, is largely faded & blemished on the left side. The right side is mostly in tact; & consists of a shaded area around the subject, graduating to a lighter area (which comprises most of the background area); & then fading to a darker shade near the edges of the oval. The original portrait artist did a great job on the gradient blending of the colors.

What I’d like to do (using the original 3 main background colors), is to first isolate the subject; & then create a new gradient background following the blend lines of the original.

Is there a way in Photoshop, using layers, to draw 3 color-filled shaped areas, overlap them along the edges; & then blend the colors together as a gradient? I know it seems simple enough . . . but I’m not sure of the functions involved. If someone could help with this, or point me in the direction of a *layering gradient blend* tutorial, it would be greatly appreciated.

You may get a good approximation to what you’re after by putting down patches of color in three different layers, then blurring those layers together, with an extracted version of the portrait figure on top, if this is necessary.

Another approach would be to create a gradient with the colors you want, and lay it down as a conical or circular gradient behind the subject, then adjust the transparency as needed.

Using the airbrush tool on a new layer that overlays the original image probably best simulates the tools available to the person (usually a woman) who did the original dye tinting of the photograph. Again, you may use transparency after the fact to modify this.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

edjh & Mike Russell,

Thanks very much. Will try those methods . . . (may be getting back to you guys for a little futher instruction . . . but I will try.)

mark4man

Resolved !

Took me tons of time, a few inquiries at other boards (& basically working with the ideas I received here), but I finally came up with a successful working method.

Selecting the colors of the 3 primary background areas, I used the Airbrush tool to recreate those areas in roughly their original shape & form [the 1st, a light bluish hue directly around the subject (the head & shoulders), the 2nd, a graduated light beige to muted pewter (with a steel blue tint), representing the majority of the background’s field (this one was weird . . . it was like the original portrait artist couldn’t make up their mind); & the 3rd, a blended ash gray border, running along the inside edge of the oval cutaway.] I airbrushed very carefully, so as to dissolve the edge of each area evenly.

I made the field (beige/pewter) area the bottom layer; & applied a reverse radial gradient, foreground to (a lighter shade of beige) background, pointing from the center outward to the rim. Came out spectacular . . . with just the perfect amount of center glow around the subject.

I then layered the bluish subject hue over that; & washed out that layer to 15% opacity. That seemed to recreate that original highlighting to just the right degree.

Then on the ash gray outer band (which I placed as the top layer), I applied the same type of radial gradient; & washed out the opacity there to 25%. (To set the opacity for both layers, I moved the scale until the airbrushed edges just disappeared.)

Now, the background looked tremendous . . . just the right amount of gradient blending . . . but it was too beige. So I created another layer, in a light violet blue; & tried washing out the opacity to get the desired shade. 25% gave me the right amount of luminosity, but the color wasn’t right. So, just on a hunch (& probably with everyone’s posts in the back of my mind), I tried applying different blend modes.

As soon as I got to *Multiply* . . . that was it!

Man, this thing looks sensational. (Sorry to go on so long . . . but I really got into it; & learned a lot about Photoshop, to boot.)

Thanks again (will post a .jpg of the result, if anyone wants to see it),

mark4man

BTW – edjh . . . went back & read your post. Are you saying that multiple gradient angles are possible? Can you back up a bit; & go through your method with a little more detail. It sounds like another great solution, if I read you right. Thanks.

I found the following message on this group. A cousin has a tiny tintype or daguerrotype of an ancestor which I would like to scan and restore. It’s in a locket. She’s willing to have it scanned so I can work on creating a digital image for distribution.

What scanning resolution? Settings?

Any special handling considerations? I concerned about
preservation of the original.

Would taking it to Kinko’s for scanning be ok? Or should I take it to a more sophisticated shop? If so, what kind of a shop?

Thanks!

<*)))))><{

On 30 Dec 2003 14:29:24 -0800, (mark4man) wrote:

|Resolved !
|
|Took me tons of time, a few inquiries at other boards (& basically |working with the ideas I received here), but I finally came up with a |successful working method.
|
|Selecting the colors of the 3 primary background areas, I used the |Airbrush tool to recreate those areas in roughly their original shape |& form [the 1st, a light bluish hue directly around the subject (the |head & shoulders), the 2nd, a graduated light beige to muted pewter |(with a steel blue tint), representing the majority of the |background’s field (this one was weird . . . it was like the original |portrait artist couldn’t make up their mind); & the 3rd, a blended ash |gray border, running along the inside edge of the oval cutaway.] I |airbrushed very carefully, so as to dissolve the edge of each area |evenly.
|
|I made the field (beige/pewter) area the bottom layer; & applied a |reverse radial gradient, foreground to (a lighter shade of beige) |background, pointing from the center outward to the rim. Came out |spectacular . . . with just the perfect amount of center glow around |the subject.
|
|I then layered the bluish subject hue over that; & washed out that |layer to 15% opacity. That seemed to recreate that original |highlighting to just the right degree.
|
|Then on the ash gray outer band (which I placed as the top layer), I |applied the same type of radial gradient; & washed out the opacity |there to 25%. (To set the opacity for both layers, I moved the scale |until the airbrushed edges just disappeared.)
|
|Now, the background looked tremendous . . . just the right amount of |gradient blending . . . but it was too beige. So I created another |layer, in a light violet blue; & tried washing out the opacity to get |the desired shade. 25% gave me the right amount of luminosity, but |the color wasn’t right. So, just on a hunch (& probably with |everyone’s posts in the back of my mind), I tried applying different |blend modes.
|
|As soon as I got to *Multiply* . . . that was it!
|
|Man, this thing looks sensational. (Sorry to go on so long . . . but |I really got into it; & learned a lot about Photoshop, to boot.) |
|Thanks again (will post a .jpg of the result, if anyone wants to see |it),
|
|mark4man
|
|
|BTW – edjh . . . went back & read your post. Are you saying that |multiple gradient angles are possible? Can you back up a bit; & go |through your method with a little more detail. It sounds like another |great solution, if I read you right. Thanks.

<*)))))><{ wrote:

I found the following message on this group. A cousin has a tiny tintype or daguerrotype of an ancestor which I would like to scan and restore. It’s in a locket. She’s willing to have it scanned so I can work on creating a digital image for distribution.

What scanning resolution? Settings?

Any special handling considerations? I concerned about
preservation of the original.

Would taking it to Kinko’s for scanning be ok? Or should I take it to a more sophisticated shop? If so, what kind of a shop?

Tintypes scan well, and, because they are unenlarged negatives, often contain much more detail than may be easily seen by the eye. I’ve scanned them at 2400 ppi on a flatbed and gotten very good results.

Or if your digicam supports macro mode, photograph it with a digicam. I’ve gotten great results this way, using a Nikon cp990.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

www.geigy.2y.net

"<*)))))><{" asked:
"…
Any special handling considerations?
…."

Do **NOT** touch the image surface … with anything.

RSD99 wrote:

"<*)))))><{" asked:
"…
Any special handling considerations?
…"

Do **NOT** touch the image surface … with anything.

I disagree. You may be thinking of daguerrotypes, which are condensed mercury on a silver plate – very delicate indeed – but tintypes are among the most durable photographic media ever created.

That said, do be careful. Don’t expose the plate to water, because the substrate is iron and prone to rust, but don’t hesitate to clean the surface gently with an alcohol solution and lens paper.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

I was "thinking of daguerrotypes" … but I respectfully disagree with your comment … since

(1) the OP probably doesn’t know the difference, and
(2) Posted as such in her posting.

If she doesn’t know that it is a daguerrotype … and touches the image surface … it *will* be damaged.

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

I disagree. You may be thinking of daguerrotypes, which are condensed mercury on a silver plate – very delicate indeed – but tintypes are among the most durable photographic media ever created.

That said, do be careful. Don’t expose the plate to water, because the substrate is iron and prone to rust, but don’t hesitate to clean the

surface

gently with an alcohol solution and lens paper.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Good comments — thanks!

My cousin (in her 70’s) says it’s a tintype. But we think the image of our ggggg-grandfather was created about 1840. So whether it is a tintype or daguerrotype — makes a big difference on archival preservation. Sounds like I should ask her to scan it at 2400 or higher, if possible. But if it’s a daguerrotype, how would a person scan it without touching the surface?

<*)))))><{

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:21:24 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

|I was "thinking of daguerrotypes" … but I respectfully disagree with your |comment … since
|
|(1) the OP probably doesn’t know the difference, and
|(2) Posted as such in her posting.
|
|If she doesn’t know that it is a daguerrotype … and touches the image |surface … it *will* be damaged.
|
|
|
|
|
|"Mike Russell" wrote in message
|>
|> I disagree. You may be thinking of daguerrotypes, which are condensed |> mercury on a silver plate – very delicate indeed – but tintypes are among |> the most durable photographic media ever created.
|>
|> That said, do be careful. Don’t expose the plate to water, because the |> substrate is iron and prone to rust, but don’t hesitate to clean the |surface
|> gently with an alcohol solution and lens paper.
|> —
|> Mike Russell
|> www.curvemeister.com
|> www.geigy.2y.net
|>
|>
|

<*)))))><{ wrote:

Good comments — thanks!

My cousin (in her 70’s) says it’s a tintype. But we think the image of our ggggg-grandfather was created about 1840. So whether it is a tintype or daguerrotype — makes a big difference on archival preservation. Sounds like I should ask her to scan it at 2400 or higher, if possible. But if it’s a daguerrotype, how would a person scan it without touching the surface?

Not conclusive. Tintypes and ambrotypes did not appear until 1856. Daguerrotypes reigned supreme until that time.

It’s easy to recognize a Daguerrotype, even from across a room – it looks at first glance like a shiny silver mirror with no obvious image on it at all. To see the image clearly you must reflect something dark in it, and then a beautiful image will appear.

A flatbed scanner will do nothing for a daguerrotype – you’ll need to photograph the image at an angle, with something very black reflected in it. Never remove a Daguerrotype from its holder because the silver will start to tarnish instantly. Tarnished daguerrotypes may be restored chemically using a solution of thiourea. Daguerrotypes are precious for several reasons, not only will they last another century or two if taken care of, but someone breathed a large amount of mercury vapor for each one produced.

A tintype is a rather drab affair, with brownish highlights, and not very dark shadows. It’s mounted on a thin piece of iron plate. They are usually not mounted in a fancy holder, but are usually in an embossed paper sleeve. OTOH, once scanned and photoshopped, you may encounter a wealth of detail and texture that no one has seen before. Fun. I recently scanned one that measured just an inch across, and it made a very decent 5×7. Tintypes are varnished, and relatively durable. Keep them dry because the iron will rust and create pinholes in the image. If necessary, use dry alcohol to clean the image because it will dry quickly and leave no water residue. I have used alcohol to momentarily fill in a tintype’s surface scratches and flaws while photographing it.

An ambrotype is mounted on glass, and looks a lot like a tintype, but is generally in a fancy case. when in doubt, use a magnet to distinguish it from a tintype. Although not as unstable as a dagerrotype, I would not recommend removing it from its case for scanning, or any purpose, because the assembly consists of a paper or painted backing, and a varnished collidion emulsion on glass that is prone to flaking. Instead, leave it in its case and photograph it with a digicam in macro mode. —
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

A wealth of information! I can’t wait to talk to my cousin.

BTY — what is "dry alcohol"?

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:07:45 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

|<*)))))><{ wrote:
|> Good comments — thanks!

| If necessary, use dry alcohol to clean
|the image because it will dry quickly and leave no water residue. I have |used alcohol to momentarily fill in a tintype’s surface scratches and flaws |while photographing it.

<*)))))><{

"<*)))))><{" wrote in message

A wealth of information! I can’t wait to talk to my cousin.
BTY — what is "dry alcohol"?

Pure alcohol. White Lighning. Not rubbing or 70% isopropyl.

200 proof,then. Where do you get it? I thought it was illegal.

<*)))))><{

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:56:47 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

|
|"<*)))))><{" wrote in message
| |>A wealth of information! I can’t wait to talk to my cousin. |>
|> BTY — what is "dry alcohol"?
|
|Pure alcohol. White Lighning. Not rubbing or 70% isopropyl. |

Where do you get it?

Chemical supply store … the kind a research chemist would buy from.

You can usually get a 99% Isopropyl Rubbing Alcohol from some drug stores …. I know that Long’s carries it under a stock number (bar code) of NDC 12333-98041-1 … which should be usable for many purposes. However, for a genuine antique such as being discussed in this thread, I’d probably go to the chemical supply house and ask for something like "Reagent Grade" Isopropyl Alcohol.

"<*)))))><{" wrote in message

200 proof,then. Where do you get it? I thought it was illegal.
<*)))))><{

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:56:47 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

<*)))))><{ wrote:

200 proof,then. Where do you get it? I thought it was illegal.

I used head cleaning alcohol, Radio Shack Professional Tape Head Cleaner, cat no 44-1115D.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net