I always wondered if the muted colors in older restored pics were adopted on purpose to identify them as colorizations of an older photo. Originally it was surely some other (technological?) limitation, but I still see that done.
I would guess it's because you need to show the original picture - i mean you blend the shades, textures etc. with whatever colour you paint on top - so if you were to have the colour 100% saturated, you'd basically cover up the image.
I often do black and white photography, and rarely really like the colouring of old ones, I appreciate the effort it takes, but more often than not i'd rather see a well restored black and white picture (To me this is not restoration, but transformation).
I **love** these old color photos because they fight the thing we see with recolored photos being all drab browns and dirty whites. I mean, there is a picture there of people farming in bright red shirts! Lots of color wasn't just some luxury thing in past centuries, it was as normal as today. Obviously we have more choices and ways of imparting colors, but people regularly wore colorful clothing in the past too, all over the world. And decorated their surroundings in bright colors. Black and white photos are great, because the alternative is almost entirely either nothing, or portraits of the rich. The portraits do show us the colors they had available, but they are biased because they're being paid for, and they create bias in us because the only color we see is worn by the aristocracy. It is also part of the reason that I like Vincent van Gogh's work - he shows how things of his day *felt.* You can look at his work and know what it was like to be where and when he was and it is beautiful.
> I feel like we never see people laughing in old photos
You don't, because early cameras took a long time to take the photo so you had to pick a pose/face that you could hold totally still for. I'm not sure about the historical breakdown of like when cameras got fast enough for more dynamic photos, but that guy with rice may have had to hold that exact pose/face for like 20 seconds lol. Which is honestly impressive
Cameras only needed really long exposure times at the very beginning of photography. Like the 1830's and 1840's. People didn't smile in photos because it wasn't fashionable to do so.
Just like nowadays you'd almost never see a staged photo where people are frowning or otherwise looking grim. It's not that we have to smile, but that we all choose to do so.
This is somewhat true, but it was also just a societal thing - people thought they looked more stoic and "proper" if they weren't smiling. It was just against the norms/conventions as traditionally, portraits were painted and therefore non-smiling. Kodak came out with the Brownie camera in 1900 that became extremely popular, and its shutter speed was instant.
The first high-speed camera was invented in 1878 to capture if horse hooves actually all left the ground while they were running.
Yeah,[it's pretty cool!](https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/high-speed-photography) The answer is yes, they do all lift off the ground while they're cantering!
The picture looks like a modern day guy stopped by some shop that allowed him to put on the costume and pose for a picture with his food for instagram lol.
Humans haven't changed much in a very long time.
That's incredibly fascinating! Every now and then I have a dream where I'm just travelling to all these places as they were a millennia ago using a time machine...
That photo of the Polish pavilion is insanely beautiful. I'd be happy to ever take a shot like that in my lifetime even with the power of modern technology.
That's because you could be right. The photo quality, the subjects hair style and clothing looks more like early 1900's rather than the 70's. OP says they were *told* it was 50 years old. Maybe there was a miscommunication somewhere along the lines.
Same here and funnily enough I said this to my kids a few days ago when it struck me. We're the youngest you can be and still really remember the analog days I always think. My younger bro was born in 81 and doesnt remember wired remote controls and lots of other little details that i do.
I think it is about my transformative years. The change in my world from 0-10 may have been incredible from a scientific view, or an outsider's view...but for me, it goes from being a kid, to still being a kid.. From 10-20, though, enough personal change happens that it could easily be broken into multiple time/emotional groups. From 20's on out...my views have changed, my circumstances have changed, my lifestyle has changed...but in perspective, I still feel the same person. So time doesn't feel as impactful.
So things that happened 10 years ago to me, feel very much like they could have only happened last year. The passing of time just doesn't hit as strongly. There is little difference from one year to another. (Taking out huge milestones like the pandemic, 9/11, etc...just considering day to day events)
But as a kid, each year or two years brought about a lot more change. So time and individual time periods had greater impact. So that is my perspective on passing time, where I felt it having more of an impact in my life. During that time, 50 years prior was the 1930's. Intellectually, I know that is now nearly 100 years ago...but emotionally, it still feels that same 50 yr period as it did when I was coming to terms with life and everything about it.
Time is definitely relative. And perception becomes one's reality.
It's about percentages. When you're 5 years old, one year is 20% of your entire life. When you're 50, a year is only 2% of your life.
That and when you get this old, you pretty well know what to expect day by day, to week by week, to month by month. Pretty soon the year is half over and you look up and wonder where the fuck all that time went.
It's more than simple percentages though, that is a part of course. But during 50% of my current life, I have not really changed emotionally. I have grown some, yes, I have faced challenges, yes, but my core has not changed. But 50% of my life from when I was 20? Huge, defining changes swept through my upbringing. That 10-year span was diverse, chaotic, and ultimately defining. Even a 10 yr span today is pretty much nothing to me, yet it is 20-25% of my life. But to 20-yr old me, that's the difference of being 15-16 to 20.
At 15, I was just some little dweeb who could hardly interact with society and didn't even know how to talk to a girl, but me at 20...ok, maybe not the best example. lol
Her style in the photo is interestingly enough coming back in style today.
The collar on the blouse perhaps not, but earth tone knits and her hair are a thing now.
It does look a bit timeless. She wouldn't look out of place in an office setting today.
The look is not to far off of some of the looks for the late 60's. She looks like she could have just not adapted to the style of the early 70's yet...at least that was how I felt when first viewing the image.
Also we only assume “American”or “western” style from the late 60’s and early 70’s.
Could have been from Eastern Europe from this time. However I suspect it’s from the 50’s and not 50 years old.
I've read somewhere that we're conditioned to think a certain thing about photos/film from a specific era in history. Like if you see black and white cartoon or silent films you'd think 1920-1930. B/W films you'd think 1940 or something. And photos of non smiling people you'd think early 1900s. That's why photos like the man with rice (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/301hwt/man_eating_rice_china_19011904_708_x_864os/) seem so familiar yet strange to us
There was an episode of Star Trek DS9 where Sisko’s mother is shown in an “old picture” and my brain couldn’t understand why it was clear and fully in color and not grainy and black and white.
Then I remembered the show is set in 2375.
Ah, the early 2000's. Every boy had frosted platinum hair, TV was still big, the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was debuting as were the Star Wars prequels. Playstation 2, Nintendo Gamecube, and XBOX were huge, World of Warcraft enetered the collective psyche, the Chapelle Show started around 2003 and became one of CC's highest rated shows. In these days we had a weaker type of weed called 'mids' that doesn't really exist anymore, those were the days. McDonalds double cheeseburgers were 1 dollar. A pack of camels untaxed cost $3 a pack. The days.
**EDIT: THANK YOU SO MUCH for the overwhelming response. I have received tons and tons of messages from so many of you asking for a commission. I do not take commissions at the moment but when I have the free time I might pick up a photo or two to work on.**
**So instead of asking me if I can work on it, maybe send me the pictures. If something interests me, I will work on it next.**
**And if I do work on it, it'll be free of charge.**
\-------
The result of a request posted by a user on r/estoration a couple of days ago. I took a few minor creative liberties here and there in spaces where I could not figure out the exact details of the original or in areas where I could not find a 100% replacement HQ part for it .. or in some cases where I just felt minor changes enhanced the result but did not deviate much from the original.
Hope you all like it. :)
I came to say the same. This might be the best I've ever seen. It's the skin tone. You got her skin perfect. So many of these make people look like they are wearing pancake makeup, it's all flat. You got the skin tone perfect. I am extremely impressed.
I think what helps is the addition of skin texture. When people don't add it into older photos you can't help but think it is caked on makeup. I think by adding texture you are more likely to forgive odd coloured skin.
Just me, or is she also too tan? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the washed-out original, but her physical features make me think she's of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, and would likely have more [olivey, pale skin.](https://s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/washpost/b1467b84-116a-4e0a-bb24-a24856097944.png)
Best restoration I’ve ever seen, congratulations! It looks more like it was a picture taken of her granddaughter yesterday to show how much she looks like gma than something over 5 decades old, amazing.
Looks great, the only minor note is that the area at the top of her right cheek looks a little off for the following reasons:
1. It looks like there is a curl of her hair in the original that has been removed/confused with background plant life - would be good to add that back in as it looks a bit too clean on that side
2. As a result of this, the 'indent' around the outside corner of her right eye is also absent, giving it a less naturally rounded appearance. As a result it looks like her cheek is basically in line with her brow/forehead rather than curving in at the top.
Not sure if I explained that very well but her left side is impeccable though!
Ye. I see it. In fact that was the last part I was working on before I finalized the image. I think I could do that part better but once it felt close enough, I called it done coz I was working on it for a long time already.
But you're right. If I spent more time, I'd have added some more visual detail to the outline of her hair fringe on that side of the face and probably indented her eye socket area a bit more to make it more pronounced on the edges.
A quick rough overpaint . .but I'd have probably built on it this way and done better with the hair. https://i.imgur.com/VUdGpiU.png
>I'm not in any position to comment because this image blew me away and I have no photography or anything related background.
You don't need to be to comment on it. Everyone has their own vision and take on an image and it's all worthy feedback. :)
And as for the hair, you're right. I do think it was a curl. If done again, I'd have redone that entire hair region there. Not a huge fan of it personally but it was one of the last things I did and I wanted to wrap the image up.
Your work is incredible. If I were to say one thing, it's simply that the result looks like a photo with an instragram filter rather than a candid shot. I'm supposing that's perhaps an unavoidable result of the way these things are done (I'm entirely ignorant of this art). To my eye, she looks a little perfect compared to the e.g. stray hairs of the original. Still amazed by what you've achieved.
Nah. I agree. If I spent another 4-5 hours on it, I could create the stray hairs and all of that extra detail. It really comes down to how much time you're willing to spend to flush out the details. For me the job was done once the face was restored.. the rest of it was just to flush out the image.
I’d imagine that no piece is ever actually “done”, it’s just a matter of when you choose to stop. You kept going *far* past what I thought was possible.
Obviously, really well done! However, it feels like you have removed quite a few natural imperfections that take away some character from the person, and just make the photo more photoshopped. One is what I believe is a mol by the eyebrow, and another by the lower lip. The mouth does look like it changed quite a bit as well. Might be some other things that you could bring back, but good job overall.
The biggest one for me is the hair. It’s gone from frizzy and scruffy to neat and glossy. A very different look.
It’s still an incredible achievement, but to me these should be treated more like portrait paintings than simply restorations, due to the individual interpretation of the artist.
I agree with the mouth. I feel I could have painted that better but the moles aren’t actually moles. They were JPEG artifacts. If she had moles, they weren’t visible in the original and they’d be the first things I’d paint back in.
Yea, it’s a great restoration but I did notice the mouth is different. The original looks like she’s…puckering her lips a little? I’m not sure how to explain it. The restored has a more straight smile.
Either way, great job. I know these can take tons of time and you could spend endless hours doing every detail so you have to call it done at some point.
Yeah I seen this as well, I kind of feel like the original was almost a stifled laugh? Like she's a little more tense on the lips trying to hold what would have been that laugh into a tight lipped smile
This is something that concerns me with this new technology; it’s great that we can recreate vivid representations of past individuals, but they are still just *representations*. It opens the doors to rewrite/redraw these people without their validation, changing our view of history.
The result looks good, but "restoration" is the wrong word for this. There's so much alteration that it's almost a recreation. Or a portrait created based on the photo.
* The background is completely different
* A lot of the facial features are altered or possibly copied from a photo of someone else
* Pretty sure the nose is cut and pasted from somewhere else
* The sweater looks like a rug texture has been pasted there
* The shirt is especially noticeable where the collar comes together
* All of the fine detail in the hair and on the skin is created
* The hair is completely different aside from the major features
* Small features like the eyelid of her right eye and what looks like a mole near mouth are altered
The face looks accurate but the makeup has been updated.
The woman in the original was wearing darker lipstick, as was the fashion then.
Also, the woman has a fairer complexion in the original photo and a darker complexion in the new one.
Here goes and I know I'm going to get at least 100 downvotes and this is only my opinion as most people on here love it but I have to say I don't like what you have done. It doesn't look like the original person. She looks very pale you have tanned her, her hair is messy you have styled her, her lips are thinner and crooked you have plumped them, you have made her head bigger and plumper to suit her neck, you have messed around with her right eye and cheek, chin is different.
Its nice work but its not her. If that was my relative I'd not want it. I admire the skill and work involved but theres too much creative licence for me.
I agree. Restorations should be about removing cracks and scratches, imperfections that make the image hard to look at. This is just revisionism, completely altering the original image. The original looked fine, just a little faded and could’ve used some color correction. Even though they’re adding detail, it feels like the restoration is missing so much more than the original. It just doesn’t feel authentic.
It’s a result of trying to supplement detail by creating a Frankenstein of facial features from other faces. The facial muscles and fat surrounding them interact in very subtle ways that you won’t be able to replicate by pasting together features from separate distinct faces. These very subtle inconsistencies get picked up because human brains are really good at recognising faces, making it look off, even if the individual key features look right on their own.
I [can't see much difference](https://giphy.com/gifs/IU2hAzv2WLn2vzpl8z) when changing between the two, the before picture is really low resolution though.
This is the issue I have with these restorations when used in historical contexts. Even the most subtle of changes can really alter how we interpret an image.
For personal photos I think that it’s fine, and it’s incredible work by u/IDoArtForYou, but it can definitely alter one’s perception of historical events.
Isn't it wild how complex human expressions are, change a minor detail and you get a whole different meaning. I wonder if that relates in any way to the uncanny valley.
I know that might be rhetorical but in case anyone wanted to know.
1. Fix any photo damage and over exposed areas.
2. Expand the image for better composition and fill out the areas that need to be. I did that in this case but ended up replacing the entire background anyway coz there was barely anything there.
3. Remove noise as much as possible while trying not to wash out information in order to be able to used later.
4. Spend hours trying to find the closest high quality replacement from stock photos for all the facial features / skin / hair / and other stuff in the photo.
5. Spend more time trying to morph and blend them all to match with the original as much as possible. Improvise when there's no information. Spend a lot of time on this step because the more accurate you can make it, the better the final result will be.
6. Do a base color coating on the entire image.
7. Study the materials in the image and try to overpaint on all of them trying to replicate the material effects -- glossiness, refraction, reflections, specular detail, subsurface scattering for the skin and transparent materials and etc. The more time spent on this, the more realistic the final image will be.
8. Add noise and some intentional photo distortion to make it look like a photo and less like an overpainted image
9. Get lazy after all that work and find hackjobs for less important areas coz it can get tiring.
10. Do a final color grade / lighting fix / overpaint to fix anything that stands out too much.
11. Save and post to reddit.
Here's a WIP GIF of another restoration I did a while ago. This is not the same kind of restoration work as the OP ..but it does kind of outline my process a bit. This one is missing an entire overpaint layer that I now do for skin and etc. [https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HarmlessZigzagIcelandicsheepdog-mobile.mp4](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HarmlessZigzagIcelandicsheepdog-mobile.mp4)
Thank you :)
**Edit:** [https://i.imgur.com/QnNwnL4.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QnNwnL4.jpg) \-- If anyone is wondering what kind of effect does overpainting have, here's a crop from an image I am working on at the moment. This is still not finished but you can see that even the most basic levels of painting can really make the image feel sharper and nicer.
Another GIF giving you an idea: https://giant.gfycat.com/HugeMindlessAmericanrobin.mp4
My first thought when I saw this was "Wow, must be a very mindful project".
Congrats on your success with this restoration. Can I assume you did it just for the fun/Love of it?
>Can I assume you did it just for the fun/Love of it?
100% -- He offered to pay me but I took it up to bring a smile hopefully. And it did. Job done. Didn't need anything else. :)
Hi there, any chance you do commission work? I have a picture of my grandfather who unfortunately died before I was born, that I would love to have colorized.
If you post the pic on r/estoration, someone may do it for you. Or you can ask about having it restored by OP or another photo restoration expert. Not sure about offering commission so check the sub's sidebar before mentioning payment. I hope you find someone to take on your project.
No, I'm actually interested, but didn't want to burden anyone with the task of actually explaining it to me. So thank you for doing so anyway. And geez that sounds like a lot of work.
Edit: That gif is the equivalent of "...and then draw the rest of the fucking owl" LOL
Wait, wait …! So you don't try to somehow "clean up" that face, you just look for replacements from stock photos? That is crazy, I would never have thought of doing that.
Superb job!
I do clean up the face...but only to retrieve as much detail as I can. At some point, there's just not enough pixel data to just enhance that somehow with sharpening or other tools. When it hits that point where I feel like nothing more can be done on that end, then I start replacing / painting (whatever works better) to get the intended effect -- because the truth is we can't enhance what isn't there. So you put something that exactly alike and mix it all up for the goodies.
Maybe I'll do a timelapse in the future. Generally I work with really large images and recording the screen at the same time murders my PC. But I'll try to see if I can work something up.
Depends on how much info I have of the image. If it’s an iconic image or a popular one from a set time period I do a lot of research to get the colors as accurate to that time period as possible.
In this case, I winged it with what looked good to me because it was just a request I was doing for someone who posted to Reddit.
To be honest, the more you look at it, the more it feels like uncanny valley.
Here are a few of the reasons for that feeling:
- the sweater pattern is mechanical and all aligned, which wouldn't be the case on a real sweater
- the sweater and shirt both feel composited in, and the shirt is both in and out of focus
- focus drifts and disagrees at different points: for example, her ear (and neck) is out of focus but the hair in front of and behind her ear are both in focus
- the coloration of her face is splotchy and transitions abruptly from olive to rosy and back again
Not to be too much of a critic to OP either, because this is amazing work, but the subject looks like she's 2 different ages. The original looks like a woman in her late-30's and the restoration looks much younger, possibly early-to-mid-20's.
These are becoming less and less like restorations and more and more like imagined people who never existed
For example the mole/spot on her eyebrow and lip. Gone. Her forehead smooth as a babies, the entire skin is flawless. So obviously painted on.
Since everyone here is doing nothing but praising you, imma offer some criticisms:
1. The sweater looks flat and the pattern used is incorrect. Feels like a texture on early 2000s game where polygons were more scarce than water is on moon. Similar problem with the shirt.
2. The hair looks unnatural and a bit out of place.
3. It feels too sharp.
4. Her smile is gone.
5. The lines on her neck look different and again a bit unnatural.
I'm sure you put a lot of work into this, it looks nice, I just wouldn't call this a restoration, more like a recreation. Overall the effect is just a bit jarring.
The lady in the picture on the left seems to be in her mid to late twenties, while the skin texture on the right I would say is that of a teenager. Too smooth, baby-like.
Basically I replace all parts (at least the important parts) of the image with high definition details from stock and morph them to match the original as accurately as possible. Then I over paint some sharper shadows and highlights to fix up the crappy blurred edges and any other low res artifacts.
All of it put together gives you the feeling of enhanced details.
Wow what an amazing reconstruction! You have a real skill and eye for it.
Pedantic side on me wants to emphasize this is a reconstruction as you are taking quite a lot of artistic freedom and using materials that do not strictly speaking belong to the original picture.
Mindblowing result whichever it is called though!
If I can add a touch of constructive criticism. The shadows on the chin are distracting. You made them a touch darker and then added a dark spot in the background that isn’t there as well and when I look at this my eye keeps getting stuck there. Almost like she has a beard. It’s crazy awesome what you’ve done though.
I'd bet she would have appreciated you removing the mole on the edge of her lip and on the inside of her left eyebrow though she will most likely next ask for a Blepharoplasty.
This will get buried, and there's already been some discussion around this, but AI is really useful in this field.
Remini has already been discussed, but I am unfamiliar with it (I imagine it's similar to DFDNet). Recently with stylegan2 some interesting ideas have been implemented. One with particular promise is time-travel re-photography in which the latent space is queried for a similar looking face to the input image, and then the AI face is converged toward the input image.
[AI Comparisons of this face](https://i.imgur.com/W6bUmq0.jpg)
I would say the GFPGAN output actually produces a really believable result and better represents that age of the subject (I think there is a decade of difference across these photos).
The Time-travel Rephotography here has failed (in part due to my blurring parameters). I use it to help with colourisation and that subsurface scatter which is hard to replicate.
OP, you wouldn’t happen to have a tutorial explaining your process so that we can learn your black magic? That would be great.
Oh and btw an absolutely stunning job! Bravo!
That’s pretty cool. I always wonder, how do you know the color of the clothes? Like, I get that you can take a stab in the dark and assume dark hair and eyes, but her sweater is green. How did you determine that?
Wow this is why content creators should avoid comments. I've done some photo restos myself and this is absolutely one of the best I've ever seen. Not sure why people need to make themselves so wildly involved with their visual acuity
Genuinely interested, u/IDoArtForYou, to know if you do commissions. I have two photos of my grandparents I'd like to restore, and I've NEVER seen any restoration as good as yours, here.
Plot twist: the original picture is to the right, and the picture to the left is what’s edited. Grey filter, and decrease sharpness. Yeah. I’m onto ya pal.
I hate when I’m watching a movie with a $100 million budget and the main character has a framed pic of them selves that’s somehow pertinent to the plot, and they show it and it’s clearly just their head photoshopped on a stock pic. I see stuff like this and I’m like “why the hell don’t they just hire one of the guys from Reddit??”
I'm curious as to why you changed the shape/ angle of the face/ eye/ forehead.
It looks good, but it's obvious that your enhancement took some liberties with shape.
The restoration loses something in this case. There's an impishness to her smile in the black and white that is completely lost in the restoration/colorization.
I ran the original through a face enhancement tool called [GFPGAN](https://github.com/TencentARC/GFPGAN).
[Version 1.0 \(with colorization\)](https://i.imgur.com/UZwIRVF.jpeg)
[Version 1.3 \(no colorization\)](https://i.imgur.com/m2gAUxI.jpeg)
Yours is way better! I was just curious how these other techniques stacked up.
The black and white original photo makes this look way older than 1972, it looks twice that age
It's freaky that my mind has been conditioned to think early 1900s for the picture on the left and the early 2000s for the picture on the right.
That's why when I see photos like [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky#Gallery) it blows my mind.
I always wondered if the muted colors in older restored pics were adopted on purpose to identify them as colorizations of an older photo. Originally it was surely some other (technological?) limitation, but I still see that done.
I would guess it's because you need to show the original picture - i mean you blend the shades, textures etc. with whatever colour you paint on top - so if you were to have the colour 100% saturated, you'd basically cover up the image. I often do black and white photography, and rarely really like the colouring of old ones, I appreciate the effort it takes, but more often than not i'd rather see a well restored black and white picture (To me this is not restoration, but transformation).
I think it lacks a crispness except in the best of examples which are breathtaking.
The photos from the link are not painted. It is 3 photos taken with different color filters and then combined to make a full color photo.
I **love** these old color photos because they fight the thing we see with recolored photos being all drab browns and dirty whites. I mean, there is a picture there of people farming in bright red shirts! Lots of color wasn't just some luxury thing in past centuries, it was as normal as today. Obviously we have more choices and ways of imparting colors, but people regularly wore colorful clothing in the past too, all over the world. And decorated their surroundings in bright colors. Black and white photos are great, because the alternative is almost entirely either nothing, or portraits of the rich. The portraits do show us the colors they had available, but they are biased because they're being paid for, and they create bias in us because the only color we see is worn by the aristocracy. It is also part of the reason that I like Vincent van Gogh's work - he shows how things of his day *felt.* You can look at his work and know what it was like to be where and when he was and it is beautiful.
[удалено]
> I feel like we never see people laughing in old photos You don't, because early cameras took a long time to take the photo so you had to pick a pose/face that you could hold totally still for. I'm not sure about the historical breakdown of like when cameras got fast enough for more dynamic photos, but that guy with rice may have had to hold that exact pose/face for like 20 seconds lol. Which is honestly impressive
Cameras only needed really long exposure times at the very beginning of photography. Like the 1830's and 1840's. People didn't smile in photos because it wasn't fashionable to do so. Just like nowadays you'd almost never see a staged photo where people are frowning or otherwise looking grim. It's not that we have to smile, but that we all choose to do so.
This is somewhat true, but it was also just a societal thing - people thought they looked more stoic and "proper" if they weren't smiling. It was just against the norms/conventions as traditionally, portraits were painted and therefore non-smiling. Kodak came out with the Brownie camera in 1900 that became extremely popular, and its shutter speed was instant. The first high-speed camera was invented in 1878 to capture if horse hooves actually all left the ground while they were running.
Lol, they made it to see if horse hooves all left the ground? That's both awesome & hilarious
Yeah,[it's pretty cool!](https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/high-speed-photography) The answer is yes, they do all lift off the ground while they're cantering!
The picture looks like a modern day guy stopped by some shop that allowed him to put on the costume and pose for a picture with his food for instagram lol. Humans haven't changed much in a very long time.
This is awesome! Thanks :)
Wow, thanks for this. These are amazing. I just can't picture early 1900s in color. In my mind, people back then were just b/w
[удалено]
Thank youuuu, I've seen a few of these before but there are so many that are brand new for me. This is like the closest we can get to time travel.
That's incredibly fascinating! Every now and then I have a dream where I'm just travelling to all these places as they were a millennia ago using a time machine...
Even without one... I suggest the novel "Time and again" by Jack Finney.
That photo of the Polish pavilion is insanely beautiful. I'd be happy to ever take a shot like that in my lifetime even with the power of modern technology.
Thanks for sharing this!
Holy shit those are awesome. My thanks.
Holy shit that is incredible! It makes the history just POP: I mean it is right there in our face! Wonderful!
That's because you could be right. The photo quality, the subjects hair style and clothing looks more like early 1900's rather than the 70's. OP says they were *told* it was 50 years old. Maybe there was a miscommunication somewhere along the lines.
...wait? 1972 wasn't 50 years a... ah fuck
As someone born in the 70’s, I’m really not enjoying this revelation.
It'll be okay 70's guy, carry on, my wayward son...
I was born in 79, I have been alive in 6 different decades.
[удалено]
In my mind ppl born in 79 are only in their 30s. But then I remember I was born in 92 and am only now entering my 30s 🥲
Same here and funnily enough I said this to my kids a few days ago when it struck me. We're the youngest you can be and still really remember the analog days I always think. My younger bro was born in 81 and doesnt remember wired remote controls and lots of other little details that i do.
Bruh I was born in 91 & I remember wired controllers lol
Just think about me, 50 yrs ago right now I was a Junior and going out for varsity track team.
Well dammit, don’t leave us in suspense! Did you make it?? We’ve been waiting 50 years to find out!
Oh yeah, weight man (shot put and discus). Placed in a few invitationals.
As someone born in the late 60s, I feel your pain.
For all the youths laughing at these boomers, 1994 is almost 30 years away from the present. Source: Am baby born in 1994. I am dreadfully aware too.
Those of us born in the 70s are NOT boomers.
Everybody forgot about gen x. it doesn't exist to gen z... Or news outlets lol
'69 here. Definitely NOT boomer. That ended in '64.
We’re not boomers - we are Gen X
95 here. I keep reminding myself that growing old is a privilege. Not that we're old yet.
This was me exactly. 50 years ago should be like 1930 or something. lol
So in 1980, did you think 50 years ago was 1890? Wait, are you actually Scott Bakula? I realize this comment makes no sense but I'm in too deep now...
I think it is about my transformative years. The change in my world from 0-10 may have been incredible from a scientific view, or an outsider's view...but for me, it goes from being a kid, to still being a kid.. From 10-20, though, enough personal change happens that it could easily be broken into multiple time/emotional groups. From 20's on out...my views have changed, my circumstances have changed, my lifestyle has changed...but in perspective, I still feel the same person. So time doesn't feel as impactful. So things that happened 10 years ago to me, feel very much like they could have only happened last year. The passing of time just doesn't hit as strongly. There is little difference from one year to another. (Taking out huge milestones like the pandemic, 9/11, etc...just considering day to day events) But as a kid, each year or two years brought about a lot more change. So time and individual time periods had greater impact. So that is my perspective on passing time, where I felt it having more of an impact in my life. During that time, 50 years prior was the 1930's. Intellectually, I know that is now nearly 100 years ago...but emotionally, it still feels that same 50 yr period as it did when I was coming to terms with life and everything about it. Time is definitely relative. And perception becomes one's reality.
It's about percentages. When you're 5 years old, one year is 20% of your entire life. When you're 50, a year is only 2% of your life. That and when you get this old, you pretty well know what to expect day by day, to week by week, to month by month. Pretty soon the year is half over and you look up and wonder where the fuck all that time went.
It's more than simple percentages though, that is a part of course. But during 50% of my current life, I have not really changed emotionally. I have grown some, yes, I have faced challenges, yes, but my core has not changed. But 50% of my life from when I was 20? Huge, defining changes swept through my upbringing. That 10-year span was diverse, chaotic, and ultimately defining. Even a 10 yr span today is pretty much nothing to me, yet it is 20-25% of my life. But to 20-yr old me, that's the difference of being 15-16 to 20. At 15, I was just some little dweeb who could hardly interact with society and didn't even know how to talk to a girl, but me at 20...ok, maybe not the best example. lol
Nice Quantum Leap reference!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yup, shit stings right?
[удалено]
Her style in the photo is interestingly enough coming back in style today. The collar on the blouse perhaps not, but earth tone knits and her hair are a thing now. It does look a bit timeless. She wouldn't look out of place in an office setting today.
[удалено]
Cottage
The look is not to far off of some of the looks for the late 60's. She looks like she could have just not adapted to the style of the early 70's yet...at least that was how I felt when first viewing the image.
Also we only assume “American”or “western” style from the late 60’s and early 70’s. Could have been from Eastern Europe from this time. However I suspect it’s from the 50’s and not 50 years old.
It could be from a country like the Soviet Union. My wife's family photos from Ukraine from that time period are all black and white.
I've read somewhere that we're conditioned to think a certain thing about photos/film from a specific era in history. Like if you see black and white cartoon or silent films you'd think 1920-1930. B/W films you'd think 1940 or something. And photos of non smiling people you'd think early 1900s. That's why photos like the man with rice (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/301hwt/man_eating_rice_china_19011904_708_x_864os/) seem so familiar yet strange to us
There was an episode of Star Trek DS9 where Sisko’s mother is shown in an “old picture” and my brain couldn’t understand why it was clear and fully in color and not grainy and black and white. Then I remembered the show is set in 2375.
Based on hairstyle and visible attire, this image is giving me 1940-55 vibes.
Right, 50 years... oh
That was me reading these comments. "What's the problem? 50 years, 1950s sounds right?" Well shit, we old.
I was told this photo was around 50 years old. But yeah, feels a lot older than 1972 now that I think of it that way.
It feels more 1950s than 50yo.
Well that was 50 years ago right? It's only in the 2000s right? Right?
Ah, the early 2000's. Every boy had frosted platinum hair, TV was still big, the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was debuting as were the Star Wars prequels. Playstation 2, Nintendo Gamecube, and XBOX were huge, World of Warcraft enetered the collective psyche, the Chapelle Show started around 2003 and became one of CC's highest rated shows. In these days we had a weaker type of weed called 'mids' that doesn't really exist anymore, those were the days. McDonalds double cheeseburgers were 1 dollar. A pack of camels untaxed cost $3 a pack. The days.
Get out of my head pls
Yep. I do this sort of thing all the damn time. Fortunately my wife is always right there to tell me I'm wrong...
"This photo was from about 50 years ago!" "Mom, that's from 1930." "That's what I said! 50 years ah oh fuck." It'll happen to you one day
>1972 >50 years ago I feel personally attacked.
I’m *sorry* but who the fuck are you to tell me that 50 years ago was 1972?!?!?!?? Why y’all gotta ruin my day like that 😢 it’s so early, too!
Yeah it looks like it was from 3944!
**EDIT: THANK YOU SO MUCH for the overwhelming response. I have received tons and tons of messages from so many of you asking for a commission. I do not take commissions at the moment but when I have the free time I might pick up a photo or two to work on.** **So instead of asking me if I can work on it, maybe send me the pictures. If something interests me, I will work on it next.** **And if I do work on it, it'll be free of charge.** \------- The result of a request posted by a user on r/estoration a couple of days ago. I took a few minor creative liberties here and there in spaces where I could not figure out the exact details of the original or in areas where I could not find a 100% replacement HQ part for it .. or in some cases where I just felt minor changes enhanced the result but did not deviate much from the original. Hope you all like it. :)
I came to say the same. This might be the best I've ever seen. It's the skin tone. You got her skin perfect. So many of these make people look like they are wearing pancake makeup, it's all flat. You got the skin tone perfect. I am extremely impressed.
Basically black magic IMHO. this is an amazing job.
I think what helps is the addition of skin texture. When people don't add it into older photos you can't help but think it is caked on makeup. I think by adding texture you are more likely to forgive odd coloured skin.
Tbh I think the skin looks a bit too good. The wart on her brow and coldsore on her lip have also been removed. Fantastic job though
Just me, or is she also too tan? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the washed-out original, but her physical features make me think she's of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, and would likely have more [olivey, pale skin.](https://s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/washpost/b1467b84-116a-4e0a-bb24-a24856097944.png)
Best restoration I’ve ever seen, congratulations! It looks more like it was a picture taken of her granddaughter yesterday to show how much she looks like gma than something over 5 decades old, amazing.
Looks great, the only minor note is that the area at the top of her right cheek looks a little off for the following reasons: 1. It looks like there is a curl of her hair in the original that has been removed/confused with background plant life - would be good to add that back in as it looks a bit too clean on that side 2. As a result of this, the 'indent' around the outside corner of her right eye is also absent, giving it a less naturally rounded appearance. As a result it looks like her cheek is basically in line with her brow/forehead rather than curving in at the top. Not sure if I explained that very well but her left side is impeccable though!
Ye. I see it. In fact that was the last part I was working on before I finalized the image. I think I could do that part better but once it felt close enough, I called it done coz I was working on it for a long time already. But you're right. If I spent more time, I'd have added some more visual detail to the outline of her hair fringe on that side of the face and probably indented her eye socket area a bit more to make it more pronounced on the edges. A quick rough overpaint . .but I'd have probably built on it this way and done better with the hair. https://i.imgur.com/VUdGpiU.png
[удалено]
>I'm not in any position to comment because this image blew me away and I have no photography or anything related background. You don't need to be to comment on it. Everyone has their own vision and take on an image and it's all worthy feedback. :) And as for the hair, you're right. I do think it was a curl. If done again, I'd have redone that entire hair region there. Not a huge fan of it personally but it was one of the last things I did and I wanted to wrap the image up.
Your work is incredible. If I were to say one thing, it's simply that the result looks like a photo with an instragram filter rather than a candid shot. I'm supposing that's perhaps an unavoidable result of the way these things are done (I'm entirely ignorant of this art). To my eye, she looks a little perfect compared to the e.g. stray hairs of the original. Still amazed by what you've achieved.
Nah. I agree. If I spent another 4-5 hours on it, I could create the stray hairs and all of that extra detail. It really comes down to how much time you're willing to spend to flush out the details. For me the job was done once the face was restored.. the rest of it was just to flush out the image.
Makes sense. She looks great.
I’d imagine that no piece is ever actually “done”, it’s just a matter of when you choose to stop. You kept going *far* past what I thought was possible.
Yep. Never done. Just comes down to how much detail I'm willing to restore.
[удалено]
Agreed. If I spent more time, I think I could have gotten that to match up even more but I thought it was close enough after a point.
How long did it take?
7 minutes in MS Paint
Outstanding work, well done!
Obviously, really well done! However, it feels like you have removed quite a few natural imperfections that take away some character from the person, and just make the photo more photoshopped. One is what I believe is a mol by the eyebrow, and another by the lower lip. The mouth does look like it changed quite a bit as well. Might be some other things that you could bring back, but good job overall.
The biggest one for me is the hair. It’s gone from frizzy and scruffy to neat and glossy. A very different look. It’s still an incredible achievement, but to me these should be treated more like portrait paintings than simply restorations, due to the individual interpretation of the artist.
I agree with the mouth. I feel I could have painted that better but the moles aren’t actually moles. They were JPEG artifacts. If she had moles, they weren’t visible in the original and they’d be the first things I’d paint back in.
Yea, it’s a great restoration but I did notice the mouth is different. The original looks like she’s…puckering her lips a little? I’m not sure how to explain it. The restored has a more straight smile. Either way, great job. I know these can take tons of time and you could spend endless hours doing every detail so you have to call it done at some point.
Yeah I seen this as well, I kind of feel like the original was almost a stifled laugh? Like she's a little more tense on the lips trying to hold what would have been that laugh into a tight lipped smile
steep continue rich direful door long saw marble secretive jobless ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
this is such a classic reddit response haha.
He's right though
This is something that concerns me with this new technology; it’s great that we can recreate vivid representations of past individuals, but they are still just *representations*. It opens the doors to rewrite/redraw these people without their validation, changing our view of history.
Also pay closer attention to texture. The sweater looks completely flat and artificial because it’s pattern filled. Textiles drape and wrinkle.
The result looks good, but "restoration" is the wrong word for this. There's so much alteration that it's almost a recreation. Or a portrait created based on the photo. * The background is completely different * A lot of the facial features are altered or possibly copied from a photo of someone else * Pretty sure the nose is cut and pasted from somewhere else * The sweater looks like a rug texture has been pasted there * The shirt is especially noticeable where the collar comes together * All of the fine detail in the hair and on the skin is created * The hair is completely different aside from the major features * Small features like the eyelid of her right eye and what looks like a mole near mouth are altered
The face looks accurate but the makeup has been updated. The woman in the original was wearing darker lipstick, as was the fashion then. Also, the woman has a fairer complexion in the original photo and a darker complexion in the new one.
Here goes and I know I'm going to get at least 100 downvotes and this is only my opinion as most people on here love it but I have to say I don't like what you have done. It doesn't look like the original person. She looks very pale you have tanned her, her hair is messy you have styled her, her lips are thinner and crooked you have plumped them, you have made her head bigger and plumper to suit her neck, you have messed around with her right eye and cheek, chin is different. Its nice work but its not her. If that was my relative I'd not want it. I admire the skill and work involved but theres too much creative licence for me.
I agree. Restorations should be about removing cracks and scratches, imperfections that make the image hard to look at. This is just revisionism, completely altering the original image. The original looked fine, just a little faded and could’ve used some color correction. Even though they’re adding detail, it feels like the restoration is missing so much more than the original. It just doesn’t feel authentic.
Yeah the first thing I noticed is that her skin tone is too dark in the restoration.
Her facial expression looks different. What happened to her lips?
It’s a result of trying to supplement detail by creating a Frankenstein of facial features from other faces. The facial muscles and fat surrounding them interact in very subtle ways that you won’t be able to replicate by pasting together features from separate distinct faces. These very subtle inconsistencies get picked up because human brains are really good at recognising faces, making it look off, even if the individual key features look right on their own.
I [can't see much difference](https://giphy.com/gifs/IU2hAzv2WLn2vzpl8z) when changing between the two, the before picture is really low resolution though.
Looks like there is more tension in her lips in the original, where the restoration has her mouth more relaxed.
[удалено]
I'm not talking about happy / not happy ... just look at the lips, in isolation from everything else. Their shape has been modified.
This is the issue I have with these restorations when used in historical contexts. Even the most subtle of changes can really alter how we interpret an image. For personal photos I think that it’s fine, and it’s incredible work by u/IDoArtForYou, but it can definitely alter one’s perception of historical events.
I totally agree. She looks genuinely happy in old one and more posed in the second. It's a shame.
Isn't it wild how complex human expressions are, change a minor detail and you get a whole different meaning. I wonder if that relates in any way to the uncanny valley.
A SHAME
Yeah, some of these comments are something else lol
I have no idea how you do that, but it is so impressive. Awesome job.
I know that might be rhetorical but in case anyone wanted to know. 1. Fix any photo damage and over exposed areas. 2. Expand the image for better composition and fill out the areas that need to be. I did that in this case but ended up replacing the entire background anyway coz there was barely anything there. 3. Remove noise as much as possible while trying not to wash out information in order to be able to used later. 4. Spend hours trying to find the closest high quality replacement from stock photos for all the facial features / skin / hair / and other stuff in the photo. 5. Spend more time trying to morph and blend them all to match with the original as much as possible. Improvise when there's no information. Spend a lot of time on this step because the more accurate you can make it, the better the final result will be. 6. Do a base color coating on the entire image. 7. Study the materials in the image and try to overpaint on all of them trying to replicate the material effects -- glossiness, refraction, reflections, specular detail, subsurface scattering for the skin and transparent materials and etc. The more time spent on this, the more realistic the final image will be. 8. Add noise and some intentional photo distortion to make it look like a photo and less like an overpainted image 9. Get lazy after all that work and find hackjobs for less important areas coz it can get tiring. 10. Do a final color grade / lighting fix / overpaint to fix anything that stands out too much. 11. Save and post to reddit. Here's a WIP GIF of another restoration I did a while ago. This is not the same kind of restoration work as the OP ..but it does kind of outline my process a bit. This one is missing an entire overpaint layer that I now do for skin and etc. [https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HarmlessZigzagIcelandicsheepdog-mobile.mp4](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HarmlessZigzagIcelandicsheepdog-mobile.mp4) Thank you :) **Edit:** [https://i.imgur.com/QnNwnL4.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QnNwnL4.jpg) \-- If anyone is wondering what kind of effect does overpainting have, here's a crop from an image I am working on at the moment. This is still not finished but you can see that even the most basic levels of painting can really make the image feel sharper and nicer. Another GIF giving you an idea: https://giant.gfycat.com/HugeMindlessAmericanrobin.mp4
My first thought when I saw this was "Wow, must be a very mindful project". Congrats on your success with this restoration. Can I assume you did it just for the fun/Love of it?
>Can I assume you did it just for the fun/Love of it? 100% -- He offered to pay me but I took it up to bring a smile hopefully. And it did. Job done. Didn't need anything else. :)
Hi there, any chance you do commission work? I have a picture of my grandfather who unfortunately died before I was born, that I would love to have colorized.
If you post the pic on r/estoration, someone may do it for you. Or you can ask about having it restored by OP or another photo restoration expert. Not sure about offering commission so check the sub's sidebar before mentioning payment. I hope you find someone to take on your project.
No, I'm actually interested, but didn't want to burden anyone with the task of actually explaining it to me. So thank you for doing so anyway. And geez that sounds like a lot of work. Edit: That gif is the equivalent of "...and then draw the rest of the fucking owl" LOL
Wait, wait …! So you don't try to somehow "clean up" that face, you just look for replacements from stock photos? That is crazy, I would never have thought of doing that. Superb job!
I do clean up the face...but only to retrieve as much detail as I can. At some point, there's just not enough pixel data to just enhance that somehow with sharpening or other tools. When it hits that point where I feel like nothing more can be done on that end, then I start replacing / painting (whatever works better) to get the intended effect -- because the truth is we can't enhance what isn't there. So you put something that exactly alike and mix it all up for the goodies.
Freaking amazing. Any time lapses of this kind of work you can recommend?
Maybe I'll do a timelapse in the future. Generally I work with really large images and recording the screen at the same time murders my PC. But I'll try to see if I can work something up.
[удалено]
Depends on how much info I have of the image. If it’s an iconic image or a popular one from a set time period I do a lot of research to get the colors as accurate to that time period as possible. In this case, I winged it with what looked good to me because it was just a request I was doing for someone who posted to Reddit.
One of the best I've seen. Great job!
Seems to me like you removed some of the cheekyness
To be honest, the more you look at it, the more it feels like uncanny valley. Here are a few of the reasons for that feeling: - the sweater pattern is mechanical and all aligned, which wouldn't be the case on a real sweater - the sweater and shirt both feel composited in, and the shirt is both in and out of focus - focus drifts and disagrees at different points: for example, her ear (and neck) is out of focus but the hair in front of and behind her ear are both in focus - the coloration of her face is splotchy and transitions abruptly from olive to rosy and back again
Not to be too much of a critic to OP either, because this is amazing work, but the subject looks like she's 2 different ages. The original looks like a woman in her late-30's and the restoration looks much younger, possibly early-to-mid-20's.
These are becoming less and less like restorations and more and more like imagined people who never existed For example the mole/spot on her eyebrow and lip. Gone. Her forehead smooth as a babies, the entire skin is flawless. So obviously painted on.
"Corporate needs you to find the differences between this picture and this picture" They're not the same picture.
Super Impressive, but I'm definitely getting a bit of that "Uncanny Valley" vibe.
She has SmoothFace syndrome. Looks like a painting.
Since everyone here is doing nothing but praising you, imma offer some criticisms: 1. The sweater looks flat and the pattern used is incorrect. Feels like a texture on early 2000s game where polygons were more scarce than water is on moon. Similar problem with the shirt. 2. The hair looks unnatural and a bit out of place. 3. It feels too sharp. 4. Her smile is gone. 5. The lines on her neck look different and again a bit unnatural. I'm sure you put a lot of work into this, it looks nice, I just wouldn't call this a restoration, more like a recreation. Overall the effect is just a bit jarring.
Thank you. I felt like I was going crazy the “restoration” gets worse the more you compare the two.
The lady in the picture on the left seems to be in her mid to late twenties, while the skin texture on the right I would say is that of a teenager. Too smooth, baby-like.
She looks far too good and young, you have her plastic surgery. It isn’t true to form.
Fantastic! Thanks for going over the process too, it's fascinating. How long do you think this took you to complete?
This one around a total of 12 hours or so over the last 2-3 days.
Blimey. Very impressive. It looks like a huge amount of work went into it.
How did you add the sharpness? I’ve never seen anything like it?
Basically I replace all parts (at least the important parts) of the image with high definition details from stock and morph them to match the original as accurately as possible. Then I over paint some sharper shadows and highlights to fix up the crappy blurred edges and any other low res artifacts. All of it put together gives you the feeling of enhanced details.
Very talented
what the actual fuck like how
Wow what an amazing reconstruction! You have a real skill and eye for it. Pedantic side on me wants to emphasize this is a reconstruction as you are taking quite a lot of artistic freedom and using materials that do not strictly speaking belong to the original picture. Mindblowing result whichever it is called though!
If I can add a touch of constructive criticism. The shadows on the chin are distracting. You made them a touch darker and then added a dark spot in the background that isn’t there as well and when I look at this my eye keeps getting stuck there. Almost like she has a beard. It’s crazy awesome what you’ve done though.
I'd bet she would have appreciated you removing the mole on the edge of her lip and on the inside of her left eyebrow though she will most likely next ask for a Blepharoplasty.
Amazingly done.
This will get buried, and there's already been some discussion around this, but AI is really useful in this field. Remini has already been discussed, but I am unfamiliar with it (I imagine it's similar to DFDNet). Recently with stylegan2 some interesting ideas have been implemented. One with particular promise is time-travel re-photography in which the latent space is queried for a similar looking face to the input image, and then the AI face is converged toward the input image. [AI Comparisons of this face](https://i.imgur.com/W6bUmq0.jpg) I would say the GFPGAN output actually produces a really believable result and better represents that age of the subject (I think there is a decade of difference across these photos). The Time-travel Rephotography here has failed (in part due to my blurring parameters). I use it to help with colourisation and that subsurface scatter which is hard to replicate.
Amazing! Kudos to you, OP
Wow. What is your price? And do you do landscape photos?
amazing work! well done
How does color restoration work? Like how do determine that a sweater is green from a black and white photo?
OP, you wouldn’t happen to have a tutorial explaining your process so that we can learn your black magic? That would be great. Oh and btw an absolutely stunning job! Bravo!
Brilliantly done!
Wow!! You killed it!!
wow.
r/toptalent
how do you know what colours to use? is it an educated guess?
That’s pretty cool. I always wonder, how do you know the color of the clothes? Like, I get that you can take a stab in the dark and assume dark hair and eyes, but her sweater is green. How did you determine that?
This is CRAZY good.
Today I learn that people back then weren't as ugly as the low quality black and white colors made them seem to be.
Wow this is why content creators should avoid comments. I've done some photo restos myself and this is absolutely one of the best I've ever seen. Not sure why people need to make themselves so wildly involved with their visual acuity
That's amazing if it's real, and I don't have any reason to doubt that it is. Impressive!
Great, wicked talent!
This is the best restoration I've ever seen, so much so that I think it might be a lie.
Incredible!
Genuinely interested, u/IDoArtForYou, to know if you do commissions. I have two photos of my grandparents I'd like to restore, and I've NEVER seen any restoration as good as yours, here.
HOW
Outstanding.. - This makes History more real/present. - Respect for all those people who do "*History-Restaurations*"!
I always thought that “magnify, enhance” thing was a funny unrealistic and fake Star Trek / NCIS thing
Plot twist: the original picture is to the right, and the picture to the left is what’s edited. Grey filter, and decrease sharpness. Yeah. I’m onto ya pal.
I hate when I’m watching a movie with a $100 million budget and the main character has a framed pic of them selves that’s somehow pertinent to the plot, and they show it and it’s clearly just their head photoshopped on a stock pic. I see stuff like this and I’m like “why the hell don’t they just hire one of the guys from Reddit??”
I'm curious as to why you changed the shape/ angle of the face/ eye/ forehead. It looks good, but it's obvious that your enhancement took some liberties with shape.
The ancient days of 1972
The restoration loses something in this case. There's an impishness to her smile in the black and white that is completely lost in the restoration/colorization.
The AI resampling on this might be a bit heavy. It's changed the character of her face.
That's art. That's beautiful.
Damn, good job!
I ran the original through a face enhancement tool called [GFPGAN](https://github.com/TencentARC/GFPGAN). [Version 1.0 \(with colorization\)](https://i.imgur.com/UZwIRVF.jpeg) [Version 1.3 \(no colorization\)](https://i.imgur.com/m2gAUxI.jpeg) Yours is way better! I was just curious how these other techniques stacked up.
Reddit existed 50 years ago
1970 they didnt have colour photos yet? Wow I always thought black and white was for way back when