Blacked out text recovery

[issallisbs]

I have a document that is a photocopy of the origanil.  It has some blacked out text on it.  Is there a way to recover or bring out the hidden text?  I have attached the file.

[John Mensinger]

It depends on many factors. The best way is the application of various light techniques to the original document. The further removed the document is from that scenario, the harder it gets. Photocopying, scanning, Photoshop...all contribute to the reduction in probability of recovering anything. There are cases in which it may be remotely possible, but honestly, this doesn’t look like one of them.

[Mylenium]

Is there a way to recover or bring out the hidden text?

A forensic X-Ray would be your best bet. Ask around, perhaps you can even find some radiologist in your area who would be willing to give this a spin.

Mylenium

[Guest]

Mylenium wrote:

A forensic X-Ray would be your best bet.

I am sure that won't recover anything from a photocopy though.

[Guest]

Start by using heavy contrast or curves to see if there is anything there that might be recoverable first.

[Semaphoric]

Another tool to try would be Image > Apply image. Also try the Trace Contour filter.

[Guest]

Why don't you just look at the original document to learn what you were not likely entitled to know in the copy that you have?  Why don't the rest of us realize why information is redacted and that offering aid in this matter without knowing the whole story might be unethical and possibly illegal?

[Guest]

If the original is not available you can forget it.

It is obvious someone wants to prevent that information from being read.

[Michael D Sullivan]

It is hardly improper or unethical to try to retrieve as much information as possible from a government-issued document.  If the government released the information then it is no longer withheld from the public. 

If the government tried to withhould information but didn't do so effectively, and the information were sent to an attorney that had requested it on behalf of a client, the attorney might be under a duty to inform the government of the error if discovered, and in some cases might be under an obligation not to disclose the inadvertently disclosed and potentially privileged information to the client.  But if the government publicly posts information or provides it to a private party requesting it for its own purposes, or gives it to reporters, and the information includes ineffectively redacted data, it's tough luck for the government.  The data is now public for anyone who wants to figure out how to retrieve it.  Sometimes it is text that's white-against-white.  Sometimes it's text that's there, but covered by a black or white layer.  Or whatever.  Once it's been publicly released, the cat's out of the bag.

Hint:  We own the government.  It doesn't own us. 

[Guest]

Ah, an apparent tea bagger. 

Nothing in this thread specifically indicates that this is a public record or one issued by a government. It could be from a private adoption agency.

And, yes, there are laws against trying to retrieve and re-distribute confidential information for which you have no right.

It might be amusing to know Michael's country or state/province of residence so that we can understand why his perception of private records is so off.

[Guest]

Looks a pretty bureaucratic style to me!

Anyway it's pretty obvious that someone hid this for a reason, so why should we help?

[Gyno-jiz]

It's ok, we call everyone Mary.

[Guest]

Why shouldn't we? There are a lot of assumptions being made here.

The privacy law could have changed regarding this document, but the only available version is the redacted one and it is up to this person to 'uncover' the information.

I love all this 'holier-than-thou' crap.

[Guest]

Thinking that this is the 'only available version' is another silly assumption.

Check the post dates. This thread was dropped by the OP a week ago.

[Guest]

That's because the answers were given out a week ago and now the thread has veered off into this silly 'a-la-Marion' direction.

[shunithD]

Bart Cross wrote:

That's because the answers were given out a week ago and now the thread has veered off into this silly 'a-la-Marion' direction.

[Guest]

Bart, you need to scroll up a bit when Michael got all GlennBecky on us and revived the thread after a week of inactivity.

It is funny how the blue man hides his identity but has no issue revealing the identity of some mother and child.

[Guest]

Oh no, now were on the 'Marian-go-round'.

By the way, that is a photo of me at my computer (an advanced techique called a 'duotone') and that is my real name.

[the_wine_snob]

Ignoring some of the tangents in this thread, get your hands on the original, if it exists, and if it too is blacked out, look on the reverse side. If that data was typed in, or writen by hand, the paper has likely been embossed. Going over it with a soft-lead pencil might reveal the embossing enough to read the now mirror image. Try some of the stated Adjustments on this.

Otherwise, you might need the Photoshop-CSI edition.

Good luck,

Hunt

[issallisbs]

Where do you find the Photoshop CSI edition?

[Guest]

allisbs812 wrote:

Where do you find the Photoshop CSI edition?

It's a joke, based on the amazing things apparently done on that TV series.

[Guest]

Right here:

http://forensicphotoshop.blogspot.com/

[the_wine_snob]

Dec9,

Going back some years (about CS2), someone here did a nice mockup of the "CSI" Edition box. At first, I thought that your link might have that image. It was very well done, and text on the box was very, very humorous. I'd like to see that artwork again.

Hunt