Serene Life

by garik

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have the same image vertical above horizontal in this photograph. The photo was captured with an old film camera, and scanned in using my scanner. How do I remove this extra image? Could I do this in Photoshop?

enter image description here

share|improve this question
2  
I'm not quite clear on what your question is. Are you asking why the image example looks like it does, how to remove the extra image, or how to create that style again? It looks like a double exposure of some type to me. It could have been created by only winding the film halfway to the next frame and tripping the shutter again. –  dpollitt Mar 1 '12 at 23:09

3 Answers 3

If that's the original image, and you don't have a good copy of either picture you can subtract out, it's going to be incredibly difficult. This sort of thing falls into the extreme end of the restorer/conservator's art, since it means inventing detail.

The upper image is gone for good, likely, but it's not something that's irreplaceable. You can probably buy a postcard that carries more-or-less the same image. Unless it is the only existing image of something that was set up temporarily or destroyed by some catastrophe, I wouldn't worry about it. The picture of the people, below, is probably the more important image of the two by far.

How easy it would be to repair the image is difficult to tell because of the white box—accurately recovering the facial details is the most important part of restoring something like this, whether its value is historic or just family memories. If there's enough facial detail to work with, there is a good chance that the photograph can be satisfactorily recovered. But it will take a lot of work—for an inexperienced restorer, it could be many tens or even hundreds of hours—and a very good eye, along with some artistic ability. And it would help tremendously if there were other photos of the people in that picture to work from. If the basic features are there in the photo, even somewhat obstructed, and there are other references to work from in recreating the features (and, if possible, the architectural details) I'd estimate it to be about a three-day job for me (including "resting time", since it's easy to get carried away if you don't take frequent breaks from an image when you're restoring), and I know what I'm doing.

The latest versions of Photoshop (or a fully-loaded installation of the GIMP, complete with the "content aware fill" module) will make the work a whole lot easier than it might have been even two or three years ago. And trying to do the work with a trackpad or a mouse would be an exercise in frustration—a tablet, and preferably a tablet/monitor combo, should be considered almost compulsory for something like this. In the end there's still going to have to be a lot of hand-work painting in textures, making the eyes believable, and so on. Luckily, you can work on copies and in stages. But it is a long, slow, painstaking process if you want to do it yourself, and it will be very expensive if you use a reputable professional restorer.

share|improve this answer
1  
Didn't know gimp had content aware fill options now, awesome. –  dpollitt Mar 2 '12 at 2:39
    
@dpollitt Yeah -- it's a plugin called "Resynthesizer" by Paul Harrison. It's actually older than the content-aware fill and healing tools in Photoshop. I don't have any actual experience with it, but it's supposed to be pretty much the equal of the Adobe tools. If I could handle the GIMP's UI, I might give it a spin, but though the latest version is better than the previous ones, there's still a long way to go. And there are some commercial 8BFs I just won't be without, and everyone but the GIMP supports 'em. –  user2719 Mar 2 '12 at 3:20
    
The GIMP doesn't do 16 bit images, so it starts at a handycap for data when it comes to this activity. –  John Cavan Mar 2 '12 at 3:57
    
@JohnCavan GIMP v3 will have 16bit support, although it's a couple releases away –  fluf Mar 2 '12 at 6:13

This is going to be an incredibly hard restoration job, since there's no automatic way of telling which part of the exposure came from the intended image and which part came from the overlaid one.

In the unlikely circumstance that you have an unduplicated version of one of the photos (taken from the exact same place with the exact same lighting), one could attempt to subtract that from the image. But even then, the results would be far from perfect.

Mostly, you have to give it up as lost. Sorry.

share|improve this answer

That's a corrupt image (unless I'm just really not seeing it right) at the least, possibly a double exposure if you're using film, or a corrupt memory card possibly. Nothing to do to fix it now.
Try formatting the card and see if it happens again, if it does, replace the card.

share|improve this answer
    
@ rfusca thanks for your answering....this imagine had been made with an old analogic camera,and i scannerized it with my scanner –  rocco Mar 1 '12 at 23:09
1  
@dpollit i'm asking for to remove the extra image,if it's possible how to solve this,thanks so much for your comment to my post –  rocco Mar 1 '12 at 23:16

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.