How To Fix a JPEG with Lines

[JABTE05]

I'm fairly new to Photoshop, and was recently given a photo taken from a disposable camera that is completely fuzzy and has lines throughout the entire photo. It will eventually be put into powerpoint (not printed). My coworkers say there is no way to get rid of the lines, but I'm confident there's a way to make the photo look at least somewhat decent. Any advice?

Angela

[terrie]

It's probably small enough (in mb) to post here or perhaps on a web page for us to take a look at and give you some advice????

Terrie

[JABTE05]

It's probably small enough (in mb) to post here or perhaps on a web page for us to take a look at and give you some advice????

Terrie
The file is too large to upload it here. :-/

[Andrew B.]

The jpg files size limits here set with the idea that people will click and display them right here. But files that are not simply for display (such as yours) can be placed into a standard archive format (zip, sit, or hqx) to upload here. The file size limits are much higher for these formats, and I think you will have no problem. But if you do, please let us know. We want to get this board set up right to handle situations like this.

[LoisWakeman]

Angela, it is very hard to give advice without seeing what the lines are: are you talking about JPEG blockiness caused by too-high compression (for which there is no fix), or moiré, or scratches/dirt on the scan, for which there are filters that may help to alleviate the problem?

The fuzziness will be harder to deal with: you can do some careful unsharp masking to give it a bit more definition, but there is a limit to what poor optics and/or focusing can be rescued!

Why not crop out part of the image demonstrating the issue here instead of the whole thing? I can make 640x480 JPEGs saved at 30% compression that come out around the 20Kb mark, so it should be easy to squeeze in under the limits.

Most photos can be improved a bit, but unless you are prepared to spend days hand-cloning and retouching, it probably would be much more effective time and cost-wise to get someone to go back and take the shot with a decent camera (if possible of course - if it was an event shot, can you find anyone else who was there and might sell the rights to use an image?).

[JABTE05]

Okay, let's try this. Let me know if there are any problems opening the file. Originally it was saved as .sitx but I couldn't upload it, so I changed the extension as .sit and it uploaded just fine.

I actually was able to get my hands on another photo that looked fine, but for learning purposes I'd still like to get ideas from everyone on how to fix it up if possible. Thanks!!

[LoisWakeman]

Angela - I've seen some bad photos in my time, but that almost takes the biscuit. I tried various things, and the best I could get was using an edge-preserving smoothing filter set quite strong, which loses a bit of detail in the figures, but does tone down that banding and noise a bit. But I think this is still a pigskin, rather than a silk, purse! Blown highlights, terrible noise, and where the bandng came from, who knows. Perhaps it was scanned on one of those little hand-held devices you sweep across the photo?

[JABTE05]

Supposedly the pictures were taken by a regular camera and both developed and put on a cd-rom. I took a look at some other pictures that were taken by the same camera, and the only time they don't come out grainy is in really bright sunlight. Even then it's pretty bad quality. I think these photos are a lost cause. Thanks everyone for the help.

[groucho]

<the only time they don't come out grainy is in really bright sunlight.> That sounds like someone used a low-light film or a cheap 60-minute developing place, not much you can do about that except tell them to use a slower film (EI 100 or 200) whenever possible, and try to avoid photo places that hire minimum labor from burger places.

If the same place transfered the images to CD, that may be where the lines come from, and they should be asked to do the job over at no charge. Otherwise...lines can be retouched in any application like PhotoShop. Sometimes with brush tools, other times one pixel at a time if you zoom all the way in and change each one to what the neighboring pixel looks like. (A very tedious way to do things.)

[Andrew B.]

I've never seen this much noise occurring naturally in jpeg images. The metadata on the image says Impak Film Sanner [sic], model F-12 Plus. It also mentions Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh.

Anyway, I see others have advised you about getting a better version to work with. Also, this image is so dark and small I'm not sure what use it would have in a Powerpoint presentation. But if you don't care about how dark it is, it is pretty easy to get rid of the streaks (see attached). And if that's all you need, I can explain this. But if you want to get rid of the streaks PLUS lighten it, it will mean getting rid of even more noise that is not showing now, and that will take a good deal of hand work. Also, lightening won't reveal any image data from the shadows, because there is nothing there but noise.

[groucho]

<The metadata on the image says Impak Film Sanner [sic] >

A sign of very carefully crafted and proofed software.<G>

[Bo Aakerstrom]

Glad you got this sorted, as this is a pretty useless image.

The lines are the least of the problem here!

This is a typical example of what happens when a point-and-shoot camera with ISO 100-200 colour print film is used in a large poorly lit room.

The flash is only good up to a few metres and if you would have access to the negative you would find that apart from the backs of the people directly in front of the camera (where the auto-exposure reading is taken) there will be no information on the negative. In the dark areas, and in the area where you can see the stage and the speaker the negative would be very thin due to under exposure, hence the amount of visible grain. Using film stock with a high ISO rating would give you more and harsher grain than this (if you insist on using the poxy flash on the camera).

The s(c)anner in question is quality wise what you would normally find in one of those 60 minute places - not great, but given a decent negative it would produce a passable result.

The solution? Hire a photographer..., as no amount of digital tweaking could rescue something like this!

[JABTE05]

But if you don't care about how dark it is, it is pretty easy to get rid of the streaks (see attached). And if that's all you need, I can explain this.

The consensus seems to be that this is just a horrible picture, and I should never use it. However the image you attached doesn't look half bad considering what we started with. I have to say that judging from all the comments I will not be using the picture, but can you tell me how you got it to look the way it does?

[Andrew B.]

I have to say that judging from all the comments I will not be using the picture, but can you tell me how you got it to look the way it does?

I don't know how familiar you are with various tools and methods. So I'll just give the simple explanation, and if you decide to try this and need more detail, just ask away. And, of course, the version I posted is as much yours as it was before I worked on it. So you could use it if you want to.

Anyway, I did the adjustment with three layers in Photoshop. The first one I ran Neat Image at routine settings, with my eye on the lower part of the image and how the noise was affected there. Then I copied this to a new layer.

On the new (second) layer, I ran Neat Image two or three more times, using the same setting as the first layer. The result was too strong for the lower part where the people are, but got rid of the noise in the upper part. So I used a layer mask to hide all of the second layer except the dark area above the people, and the top part of the blue screen.

The result looked a tad hazy, so I added a third layer which I filled with 50% gray, and set to Overlay blending mode. Then I used the burn tool on the gray layer, and everywhere I burned, it darkened the picture underneath. I prefer this to burning directly, because it's easier to control. I used this mostly on the upper part, and some small areas on the lower part.

...Andrew

[JABTE05]

Wow. I got the demo version of Neat Image and it really makes a difference. I may have to invest in it if I keep getting this kind of an image. Thanks for the lesson!!! Your help is much appreciated.

[lurkalot]

There's another peice of software here for noise reduction, The Helicon Filter is released in two editions: Home and Pro. After the 30 day evaluation period both editions switch to the Free mode. http://heliconfilter.com/pages/index.php?heliconfilter

[Andrew B.]

I'm glad we were able to help.

[fhaber]

FYI, I got a "JPG" that wouldn't display in anything I have handy on this PC. I'm still using Stuffit Free Expander 6 for Win, since later ones tried to sell me something. Was the above encoded with something newer? Are silent decompress failures something common with Aladdin?

The output was 360,480 bytes.

[lurkalot]

fhaber,

Maybe it's in jpg2000 format, you could try this free software if you haven't already.

http://www.irfanview.com/

[Andrew B.]

I found this at the Stuffit web site:StuffIt X archives cannot be expanded by older versions of StuffIt Deluxe or StuffIt Expander. In order to expand a StuffIt X archive, your recipient must have a copy of at least StuffIt Expander 7.0 installed.http://www.stuffit.com/compression/sitxformat.html

[Molly/CA]

The jpg files size limits here set with the idea that people will click and display them right here. But files that are not simply for display (such as yours) can be placed into a standard archive format (zip, sit, or hqx) to upload here. The file size limits are much higher for these formats, and I think you will have no problem. But if you do, please let us know. We want to get this board set up right to handle situations like this.

Wow. As a refugee from PeeCis, I'm flabbergasted (even more than usual) by the level of do-it-rightness here.

[Molly/CA]

Speaking of tweaking, would you care to explain how you got the disco lighting on your avatar?

[Bo Aakerstrom]

Speaking of tweaking, would you care to explain how you got the disco lighting on your avatar?

Disco, what disco? I must have nodded off for a moment.

I guess the correct answer must be tweaking, it's what happens when someone like me have Photoshop and too much time to fiddle about. The original is a B&W photograph, duplicated to a new layer, areas selected with the wand and filled with the colours you see. Choose a suitable blend mode and Robert is your mothers brother.

[Molly/CA]

Thanks, I think.

[Bo Aakerstrom]

You're welcome.

I'm no expert when it comes to Photoshop, but that is what I seem to remember doing anyway.