Voting will run from 23 May to 29 May 2005. Deadline for votes is 5pm EDT 29 May 2005.

Only those that entered the contest may vote. All other votes will be deleted.

Vote for the 5 best entries in order.

Note you cannot vote for your own image. If you do, your votes will be deleted.

Example Vote:
Pick the top five contest entries and list in order...

1. Entry X (First Place)
2. Entry A (Second Place and so on)
3. Entry Q
4. Entry S
5. Entry P

This thread will remain closed until it's time to vote.

Voting is now open!

All the contest entries have been loaded into one gallery courtesy of Caitlin.

You can view them here (http://www.tv83.net/RetouchPro-May-Contest/index.html)

As always, when you vote try to include some things you especially liked about your choices…what made them stand out, what impressed you, etc. This is a learning experience! :)

This was great to see all the varied entries! Here are my favorites:

#1. Caitlin - Awesome job! I'd hire you in a heartbeat! Can't wait to learn how you did this - I do hope you share some of your secrets, especially getting that mold out!
#2. Ms. Bay - it made me smile - not sure what it is but it made me smile as soon as I opened it :-)
#3. Flora - you were the one I kept referring to when I was working on mine - you pushed me to work a little harder!
#4. Suchyy - great job!
#5. Racc Iria - also great job!

Carabell

well, i think the voting was almost as hard as doing the picture. there was quite a range of techniques, detail, reconstruction and so on. it was fairly easy to bring the list of contestants down to 10, but after that it got quite difficult. a lot of folks missed on the baby's face. that was key to me, as that was where the most critical damage was done. some failed to correct the offset from the top part and the bottom part of the major rip. others restored the eyes, but they were looking the wrong direction. if you zoomed in on them you could tell which way she was looking.

the basic picture is the 3 kids, particularly their faces, and those that didnt get those fairly close, i cut right away, even if the rest of their work was good. after that it was their dress and then the background stuff and floor.

the clothing was a bit tricky. some picked up quite a bit of detail and others chose the ambiguous route, choosing not to try and pick it up. mostly, if they got some detail but didnt leave the clothing 'dirty', then it was ok in my book. i did like that some picked it up quite well, but it was secondary thing to me.

after that, it was the background work and detail. most folks seemed to pick up quite a bit of detail here. a few fudged on it or wiped it pretty badly. one even cropped part of it out.

but that still only brought me down to about 7 entries and from there it got quite difficult. i did side by side comparisons, judging mostly on the overall look. i even brought up the original work and compared each to that.

finally, i managed to cut out the last two...reluctantly. and this was my final result:

1. Caitlin
2. Doug Colwell
3. Gary Richardson
4. Pictureman_33
5. Freddieanne

caitlin did a marvelous job. the faces are all done very well. detail was shown in the dresses and a lot of the background was picked up quite nicely. noise was reduced and smudges/corruptions removed quite well. on the down side, the baby's dress is a bit too white and could have been faded down a bit and the detail work in the wrought iron could have been a bit more. i'd have also gone with reducing the sepia tone, but i chalked that up to a personal choice rather than a mistake. so all in all, this is first place work.

doug also got all the faces well. i didnt like his clothing as much, however. where he did pick up some detail there, the overall effect was a bit dirty/smudged. still, a very good job! all of the major points were restored well. the background could have had a bit more work done on it, again, around the wrought iron pieces. compared to caitlin's the overall look was a bit more smudged. another sharpness might have helped. but remarkable work.

i liked gary's detail quite a bit, but i think he sacrificed cleaning up the clothing to get it. basically, he brought out a lot of detail all over, but then didnt clean a number of areas up, leaving dirty areas here and there. he got all the faces very well, detail in the clothing and background and removed the major tears, bends and so on nicely. the only real complaint was the leaving of those 'dirty' areas, mostly in the clothing, but some in the background as well.

i almost cut pictureman's early on, but it just kept catching my eye. i finally figured out what it was i liked and disliked and he made my number 4 spot after the final overall comparison. what i liked was the great detail work. excellent! what i didnt like was the noise he left. had he cleaned out a bit more of that, he would have easily been my winner. and in all fairness, had i printed out on paper all of the pictures, i believe the printer might have made him the winner too.

i also almost cut freddieanne because of the baby's face. though it was a great job, it differed from what i saw in the original. there was good detail all around, especially the clothing. some of the clothing was bit too bright, the baby's dress and the boy's shirt, but i liked the extra attention he put, particularly on the older girl's dress. there was good detail all around and the overall effect was quite professional. a bit of detail was missed on the wrought iron, those little white petal things on that one piece in particular. a little detail was also missed on that stack/chimney/engine thing on the right, but only the minor stuff.

a remarkable job all around. i congratulate everyone who entered. it was not an easy task :)

K.

(now, why do i feel like Simon on American Idol?)

I based my votes on the guidelines of the contest. I removed all the entries that looked too painted (this is supposed to be a photograph not photo art), then I eliminated all those that didn't fix all the damage, such as the big tear, the alignment of the top with the bottom, etc. And then sice the rules stated we weren't supposed to change the image, I sadly had to eliminate any that were too creative in their reconstruction, no matter how well done. There were areas of the photo that just didn't have enough useful information to reconstruct something without speculation and thus become "untrue" to the original.

That being said, no one did badly in this contest. I thought is was very difficult and every entry was outstanding. Which just made voting all the more difficult. Anyway, here's how I saw 'em in order of how realistic they looked...

1. Pictureman33
2. Flora
3. Cazubi
4. Caitlin
5. Suchyy

Here is what I saw.

1.Caitlin
2.Kraelin
3.Freddieanne
4.Flora
5.Doug Calwell

Great job everybody!! :bigthmb:

Voting was hard because all the entries had something I liked very much .... But, vote we must and only for 5 submissions ....

Well, like Racc Iria, I tried to base my votes on the guidelines eliminating the pictures where:

* the big tear across hadn't been corrected leaving particularly the face of the little girl in the middle 'misshapen'

* the restoration had turned the picture into a 'painting' instead of a photograph no matter how well done or pleasant looking.

* the reconstructions/additions were "too creative, no matter how well done"

* the blurring had made the picture too soft ....

Here are my votes:

1° pictureman33 ... the 'card' around the picture had me undecided for a while .. :) , but I found his restoration very good.

2° Racc Iria ... would have been my first choice, nice clean and very accurate restoration, ... but for the little girl's 'strangely' spaced eyes.

3° Gary Richardson .... was my first choice for a long time ... he really kept the right feeling .... what I missed was a tiny little more clean-up and 'life/contrast'..

4° Caitlin .... somewhat 'lacking texture' but accurate, clean ... lovely!

5° Cazubi ... I really like his/her restoration ... just slightly too 'blurred' in my eyes.

Again, I found voting the hardest task ... There were many other entries I liked very, very much ... but 5 is the limit ...

Man, this is tough. So many great entries.

For me, the most critical part is the baby's face. So, I went back to the original, made a layer of the top half and nudged it to the right a little. I compared that to my favorite choices - side by side - with just the baby's face in mind. Then I evaluated the other kid's faces, the clean up on the clothes, and the carpet. The background was less important to me...

As hard as it is, I guess my votes are:

#1 - Doug Colwell - Overall, the most natural, detailed and realistic. I love what you did with the older girls dress/jacket???

#2 - Caitlin - The baby's eyes look great!

#3 - cazubi - I love you're baby eyes as well. Beautiful clean-up.

#4 - Pictureman - Again, good baby eyes. I'm just a little distracted with the clothing.

#5 - Flora - Striking, Lovely feel.

Great job everyone. :thumbsup:

Annabel

Here is my vote...........

1) Chrishoggy
2) Doug Colwell
3) Suchyy
4) Freddieanne
5) Caitlin

This vote was incredibly hard! Because it was such a tough restore job, I think everyone did well on certain aspects, but I don't think anyone was able to perfect every single aspect.

I tried to assess the images on these criteria:

First off - faithful to the original photo - there were some clever retouches in there (Ms Bay - very cute!), but I didn't consider they were eligible for a restoration vote.

Then I was looking for:
Realistic and appropriate eyes for the baby.
Realistic hand added
Tear repaired seamlessly
Boy's leg stain removed
Background not too noisy but retaining detail
Clothing clean and with some realistic, but faithful, detail.

Once I allocated votes for these I was down to about a list of 7. Filtering this down to 5, and sorting those 5 proved very tough though.

I finally had to factor in 'gut feeling' because though some of the entries got better votes on the point system, I simply found others had a better overall impression.

1. FreddieAnne - really liked this. The hand is a little blurry and the stain on the boy's leg hasn't been repaired. Good attempt to add some subtle texture and detail to the clothes though, and I like the overall effect - the picture is clean but still retains a lot of detail (for instance the weave on the carpet) and still retains the feel of the original.

2. Well this position changed half a dozen times! Finally settled on pictureman. Though he wasn't in my initial top 5, after a while it grew on me. The baby's eyes are great, though the boys hand is a bit small for his body I thought. Overall the picture still has a lot of noise, in both the background and clothing. Yet I decided the fact that the detail of the children's faces were faithfully retained overrode this concern to an extent. There was also a degree of whimsy which I liked in framing the still somewhat dirty image in an old fashioned cardboard frame.

At this point I wish I could give tied 3 to the rest - because I found it next to impossible to pick! Still....

3. Suchyy. Overall the image was a little soft and the clothing was a bit blown out. Also I thought the eyes were a bit big for the baby's face, though they did suit the face well. Overall the picture just 'worked' though, and the tear and cleaning up the background were very successful. Probably the biggest weakness was the clothing - the toughest part I thought! And the softness of the image (the hand was a little strangely shaped but acceptable)

4. Doug Colwell - Everything worked in this picture - and in fact got my highest score in terms of successfully fixed elements. I thought the clothing may have been augmented a little too much though, and the children seemed to have developed slightly sinister expressions along the way!

5. Flora. As always an excellent job from Flora. My only corcerns, but they were keys ones for me, was that the faces seemed somewhat retouched - having rosy cheeks that were not apparent to me in the original, and the eyes of the baby were a little too big and doll like for my taste. One of the few to fix that leg stain though!

Phew - if anyone has read this far - congratulations to all - I think the most challenging of contests we've had yet! Just by having the guts to attempt it everyone deserves an award! :bigthmb:

I have really enjoyed watching all of the entries come in, and appreciate seeing the different styles of work. What I looked for in the entries was a picture that still retained the vintage photo look, and was repaired as seamlessly as possible. The eyes were especially important because they had to be replaced and need to be proportional and blended. Here are my votes:

1. pictureman33: It has a nice vintage look, and not over-worked. The baby’s face looks soft and natural.

2. Caitlin: Very clean, excellent restoration. The baby’s face looks perfect.

3. freddieanne: It keeps the vintage feel, and is very nicely restored. The eyes on the baby are very natural.

4. Doug Colwell: Very nice restoration, and the baby’s eyes are natural and placed very well.

5. Gary Richardson: Very vintage feel, but very nicely restored. Your baby’s face and eyes are excellent.



Cathy

Here's my vote:
1. Freddieanne - great job!
2. Pictureman33
3.Caitlin
4. Doug Colwell5.
5. Rac Iria

First of all I would like to say that i really like this kind of competition and I will surely take part in future parts.

It is not easy to choose best picture because they are very different and I do not know which version I like the most :)

After many minutes of thinking... here is my vote:

1. Flora - smooth, but not blured. It is just as sharp as it should be in my opinion (eg. I really like pictureman's work but it is to grainy (probably because of sharpening) ) Ahh, I almost forgot - I like the color.

2. Caitlin - I do not like the color, but everything else seems to be fine.

3. Jaime - Different from Flora's and Caitlin's images but I like it too. Everything is very sharp and distinct. Though I like overall contrast I think clothes are too bright and boy's pants are too dark.

4. Pictureman33 - Very nice but too grainy.

5. Doug Colwell - everything is just OK :)

Forgive me all mistakes I could have made, I am still learning English. Reading is all the time easier then writing :)

My votes

1 Gary Richardson
2 Cazubi
3 pictureman
4 Caitlin
6 kraellin

#1-Caitlin- Very accurate to the original photo. Pleasant in contrast and color
#2-Flora-Excellent as always and accurate to the original
#3-Doug Colwell
#4-Jaime- Excellent but I thought it was too sharp; contrasty
#5-Suchyy- Perhaps a little too soft.

An excellent and challenging contest.

The baby's eyes seem to be the make or break point in this one, and of course everyone here is looking at them very closely. The eye copies seemed to work for me if they were adjusted a bit so the copy wasn't so obvious. Kudos to those who built them from scratch whether they worked, or didn't quite.

1. Caitlin - sharp, clean, nice sepia and baby's eyes very well constructed. Like the boy's shoe detail too.

2. Cazubi - tones and detail work look great. Just a little noisy.

3. Flora - strong, dramatic tones and contrast, just not sure about the eye and cheek highlights.

4. Freddieanne - very nice detail in clothing and baby's eyes, but boy's pants, stockings and shoes seem too black compared to the other dark areas.

5. Suchyy - dramatic tones and contrast in this one too, just a little smudgy (looks like the chair rail had a whoops).

Congrats to all the entrants! This one was really hard because there was so much good work here. Personally, I did my voting in this order: baby's face, children's clothes detail, other background detail and overall cleanup. How natural the photo looked for it's time period made a big difference in my voting also. Here goes!

1. Cazubi
2. Caitlin
3. Doug
4. Freddieanne
5. Racc Iria

Hi,

First of all congratulations to all who entered the contest, not an easy one to judge.

The things I looked for were, sympathetic restoration of the figures faces, maintaining overall feel of piece, alignment of picture segments and general clean up of image.

1st Caitlin, liked pretty much all that she's done, with two exceptions. Didn't like the particular sepia tone used, and girls shoe needed a little work (I missed this area on my restore as well). But those aside, it was a very well restored piece. Noise reduction was good, without blurring and softening the image, as so many did.

2nd Flora, as you would expect, Flora's eye for detail was clearly evident in her restore. She cleaned up and brought out things others didn't. However, for me, the image was overall a little soft, and that's why I put her in second place.

3rd Cazubi, really liked this image, however, it needed sharpening a little, and some noise reduction would have improved it greatly.

4th Pictureman33, had to crop the frame off this one before I could judge it, found the frame too distracting. But, I liked his treatment of the baby's face in particular. Again, needed some noise reduction, and the shirt of the boy and baby's dress were just a touch blown out on my monitor.

5th Doug Colwell, didn't really like his treatment of the baby's face, and despite an otherwise excellent restore, that moved it down to 5th for me. A bit oversmoothed for my taste too.

My vote:
1. Caitlin
2. Doug Colwell2
3. Shalford
4. Flora
5. Gary Richardson

Here are my votes:

1. Caitlin – Good overall restoration.
2. Freddianne – A clean restoration. The baby’s face looks charming.
3. Pictureman33 - Another very nice restoration but a little grainy.
4. Suchyy - Good impression but a little soft.
5. Gary Richardson - Great job with the baby’s face and eyes (looks very natural).


Congratulations to all the participants.

Hard one to judge, as peoples opinion on what restoration/reconstruction means are so different.
1/ Cazubi : Needed a bit of the noise removing from the photo, but over all a nice looking restoration.
2/ Doug Colwell : The restoration was good, but the centre childs eyes just didn't sit right in the picture for me. Can't put my finger on why they don't look right, but IMO they looked wrong.
3/ Flora : Again a nice job, but the eyes on middle child seemed a little too big for the face IMO.
4/ Gary Richardson : Very true to the original, but I thought it needed a bit more doing to the clothing and bottom left corner.
5/ Pictureman_3 : Again true to the original, but the boarder/frame let it down.

Ok,here is my take.

Personally, I don't know what people were/are looking at for this one, given the order and selection of winners. However, I will continue to put down my own preferences based on the rules as I understand them - "the buyer is always right" :-)

A little reasoning behind my choices - I sought the following:

1) Where the picture retained the feel and look of the original piece, sans tears, blurs etc... preferred original hue/sat

2) Where clothes detail was recovered from the picture and not guessed at (researched) by the "artistes" - even if more detailed . I found this quite disconcerting and beyond the scope of recovering the detail from the picture.

3) Where the picture retained the original grain of the picture and had not been replaced, smudged, guass'ed or otherwise smoothed -

4) Where unrecoverable pieces (foot and hand) were either left alone or recovered with a minimum of "interpretation"

5) Where the speed of the restore was considered

6) Where the picture was most like the original. While I was not an ethusiast of the borders on the picture, they were well done and if the border had not been present, they would have moved up in the ranking.

It is with these things in mind, that I found

1) Gary Richardson - hands down the fastest and best
2) Freddieanne - a very nice piece of work
3) Smats - nice, kept to the era, no guessing on clothing, foot left
4) Suchyy nice- was not a fan of the border
5) Pictureman_33 as in 4

Due to the holiday weekend, I most likely will not have the results posted until Tuesday 31 May, but you can always tally them up yourself to eliminate the suspense :)

Congratulations to all the entrants. I learned a great deal by examining the entries. Having struggled with the picture myself, I could appreciate the workmanship. In determining my vote I considered the goals set forth in the contest. Many of the entries were excellent so in the final analysis I considered the result from the standpoint of what I would want to pay for as a customer. I would want as close to the original as possible - especially in the faces. The babies face was a challenge and some copied the eyes from the boy or rebuilt them in a way that did not seem to fit the face. The winners below were outstanding in this aspect.
1. freddieann
2. Caitlin
3. Chrishoggy
4. cazubi
5. Doug Colwell

This was so hard to judge!
An incredible amount of talent out there.
My votes are based on which entries are kept as true to the original as possible, including colour, grain, and of course the quality of restoration.

1) Caitlin
2) Pictureman33
3) Cazubi
4) Freddieanne
5) Smats

Well, here goes my picks. It was very hard to choose, there are a lot of good photo restoration people here on this site.
I really liked seeing all the different approches people took to restoring this photo. As everyone found out this was not an easy restore job, I know I could have spent a lot more time on it than I did.
I made my votes based on how close to the original era the picture was kept.


Here are my picks:

1) Flora
2) Freddieanne
3) Caitlin
4) Cazubi
5) Suchyy

Great job everyone!! :bigthmb:

Photoshop: Thanks! Caitlin for the web-space to store all the photos on, it was a great help having all the photos on one page.

Well the votes are in.

The winner of the May Contest and the recipient a copy of Photoshop for Right-Brainers: The Art of Photo Manipulation (http://www.sybex.com/sybexbooks.nsf/4f481ae27bdb062488256cc500004f50/31a9aa89cab6f21488256d640031a228!OpenDocument) by Al Ward. Donated by Sybex is....

Caitlin!!

Feel free to ask questions and continue discussing this contest in the May 05 Contest Discussion Thread (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10473).

CONGRATULATIONS! :D

Top 5
1. Caitlin - 78 points
2. Pictureman33 - 43 points
3. Freddieanne - 42 points
4. TIE Doug Colwell -37 points
Flora - 37 points


P.S. Want to know your exact ranking, just send me a PM!