It is difficult for underwater archaeologists to recover the fine details of a captured image on the seabed when the image quality worsens due to the presence of more noisy artefacts, a mismatched device colour map, and a blurry image. To resolve this problem, we present a machine learning-based image restoration model (ML-IRM) for improving the visual quality of underwater images that have been deteriorated. Using this model, a home-made bowl set-up is created in which a different liquid concentration is used to replicate seabed water variation, and an object is dipped, or a video is played behind the bowl to recognise the object texture captured image in high-resolution for training the image restoration model is proposed. Gaussian and bidirectional pre-processing filters are used to both the high and low frequency components of the training image, respectively. To improve the clarity of the high-frequency channel background, soft-thresholding decreases the presence of distracting artefacts. On the other hand, the ML-IRM model can effectively keep the object textures on a low frequency channel. Experiment findings show that the proposed ML-IRM model improves the quality of seabed images, eliminates colour mismatches, and allows for more detailed information extraction. Blue shadow, green shadow, hazy, and low light test samples are randomly selected from all five datasets including U45 [1], EUVP [2], DUIE [3], UIEB [4], UM-ImageNet [5], and the proposed model. Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) are computed for each condition separately. We list the values of PSNR (at 16.99 dB, 15.96 dB, 18.09 dB, 15.67 dB, 9.39 dB, 17.98 dB, 19.32 dB, 14.27 dB, 12.07 dB, and 25.47 dB) and SSIM (at 0.52, 0.57, 0.33, 0.47, 0.44, and 0.23, respectively. Similarly, it demonstrates that the proposed ML-IRM achieves a satisfactory result in terms of colour correction and contrast adjustment when applied to the problem of improving underwater images captured in low light. To do so, high-resolution images were captured in two low-light conditions (after 6 p.m. and again at 6 a.m.) for the training image datasets, and the results of their observations were compared to those of other existing state-of-the-art-methods.
