Add your comments, questions or general discussion about the May Contest entries as well as the contest itself here. This is also a great place to share your techniques or ask others about theirs.

A couple of clarifications re. the contest rules...

I presume that the rules proclude hand colouring?

The challenge seems a little problematic in some ways, as with the 800x600 resolution and in monochrome it may be hard to pick between contributions. Presumably it will be the extreme fine detail that will really be the difference, and fine detail that will seperate the exceptional from the very good. That's going to be really hard to pick up in this situation. It would almost be worthwhile for contributors to submit a small detail sample, as well as the whole picture!

Just a thought - I realise we can't go changing rules mid contest!

From Caitlin...moved from May 05 Contest Thread

Oh - this looks very challenging! Don't think I'm quite up to it yet - but I think I'll have to give it a go anyway...

I notice that you say moderators can enter TPaul - but what about vote? I was thinking it might be good if moderators can vote even if they don't enter. That way we get the benefit of their expertise in the judging process, but some of them may not want to enter. (And if they ALL did us small fry wouldn't get a look in! *lol*)

(Don't be fooled with that 'senior member' tag folks - I'm right chuffed with it - but I've only been here a month! - Guess I just talk alot )

TPaul,
I noticed in last months contest, only half of the participants actually voted.
If there's a mandatory entry to vote, how about mandatory voting as well.

Participants should finish the "task" all the way through, no matter what their standing in the votes ranking. Even if the entries are not up to their taste, they still have to vote.

Agree totally with Soleah on the voting point. If people don't vote, their entry should be removed and any vote for them discounted :(
Will be good to see what people do with this one, as it's a restore, rather than a retouching to person taste :bigthmb:

I wonder if some people simply could have forgotten to vote though, depending on when they submitted their entry. Could reminders be sent out or something?

Do you think that the Contests might be better in the Challenges forum? I know that Studio is not something I would normally click on, and I only found out about this competion because I did a 'posts in 24 hours' search and it poopped up - quite late in the month!

An error was made by me when adding the layers to my restoration. This was due to me having Gary's file open at the same time as my own. As a result Gary's picture was used as a base layer instead of my own. This was spotted by myself this morning, when the Guinness was out my system. I spotted it as the boy had a hand, and my base doesn't have any hands on. Unfortunately by the time I had logged in, this mistake had been spotted and accusations had been flying via PMs. I've removed the entry and will not be entering this contest.
Apologies to Gary for this matter.
As for the person who started this issue off, a simple PM to me would have corrected the problem and the correct file would have been uploaded. I have never knowingly faked or copied a restoration in my life, and have 100's of customers who can confirm this. Yes customers, as I do this as full time job and come here as and when I can to help others.
Think it's best I leave it at that, as my blunt opinions would only cause more problems for the other users on here. :wavey:

Glad you have sorted this out directly with Gary, Chris - Far better for the people directly involved to deal with such a situation, as only they would be able to recognise their own work with certainty. I think it would be quite inapproprate of a third party to contact you directly!

I'm quite happy with Chris's explanation of things, and his apology.

I would only add, that I'd like him to reconsider his decision not to enter the contest.

Chris don't let this one thing put you off, i love seeing your work, have seen your website too, and i would be sad not to see you enter, me well i have given up on contests, it just brings out the bad in some people, and from now on i think i shall just check the pictures, tally who i think should win, and say nothing.

Gary is a nice guy who understands!

ah, restoration! i love it. this is a great example of a restoration project and i would caution folks to be VERY careful here. there are, of course, the obvious flaws, tears, smudges and so on, but there are some real subtle things in this one that makes it a great entry for a contest. it's going to be quite interesting here to see who picks up on what. this image is almost a case of where your powers of observation are more important than your photoshop skills. i've already found myself using the 'undo' quite a bit. and i already see that at least one entry posted has missed a few things.

this is an image, where if i were doing it for a customer, i'd be staying in close communication with them, showing them progress and asking just how much detail they really wanted or not, for i can see putting in many hours on this thing and running up a tab that the customer wasnt too happy with. on the other hand, some folks want every bit of detail they can get and are willing to pay for it. thus, it's going to be quite interesting how various contestants here handle this for the contest.

remember, the clone tool is your best friend or your worst enemy in restorations. use it wisely :)

K.

LegacyArt,
I think I'll do the same and watch on the sidelines.

TPaul,
Aside from the number of votes, what other factor do you use in determining the winner/ranking? Just curious. I might be tallying votes, too.
Can you give us the formula?

Oh boy, another contest. My guess is 5 points for 1st, 4 points for 2nd, etc.

Soleah, Doug is correct on the formula used for calculating the winner...

5 points for each first place vote,
4 points for each 2nd place vote,
3 points for each 3rd place vote,
2 points for each 4th place vote, and
1 point for each 5th place vote.

Thanks, Doug & TPaul.

Hello All,

I missed last month's voting. Sorry, just got too involved in something and it slipped my mind ( yes - for more than a week :blush: )

Conratulations to the winner (RH)!

Chris, Legacy Art, all this is, is a contest and a chance to work on or perfect your technique. Don't worry about where you place, just enjoy the diversity of approach and art work and keep drinking the Guiness.

I encourage you both to enter the contest . I am gaining tremendous insight with the variety and takes on retouch and the more the merrier. Some approaches I would not take, conversely I was nauseated by my own effort after looking at the final array. This is almost as good as multiple tutorials, but lacking the verbiage.

Here's my challenge to the two of you. If you both enter I promise not to win.

Sean :lol: :bawling:

i would remind folks that there is a big difference between 'retouch' and 'restore', and to me, there is even a difference between 'retouch' and 'reconstruct'. to me, a retouch is taking an image and making it better than it was, e.g. a model has blemishes, veins, or other 'imperfections' showing in the image and retoucher air brushes, or whatever, to remove those to make the image more 'perfect'. a restoration is a restore, a bring it back to its original state as best as possible from the evidence available. there is NO speculation in a restore, or at least as little as possible. a reconstruct can be more speculative. you restore from the evidence but ALSO fill in what you think shld be there, on a best guess basis.

The key to a good restoration is remaining true to the image. You want to clean up and restore the image…not change it. that's from the contest rules on this challenge..... remaining true to the image! you look at what's there and do your best to bring it back to its original state based on the actual evidence in the original. that means, to me, that if an area is so badly damaged or faded, with no surrounding evidence on which to base the restore, you leave it alone!

in a reconstruction, you might actually do a little research to try and find period pieces or similar items and duplicate those in in place of missing areas. you might reconstruct whole faces or furniture or tones or lighting all based on a best guess or researched result. thus, there is more leeway here in a reconstruction. a good example of this is in archaeology. an archaeologist might reconstruct a whole civilization based on a few bones and artifacts and correlating data. but if he/she wanted to restore a house of that civilization, he would need the actual remnants of that house to work from and enough of it to make a pretty good go of it without having to speculate too much.

now, that's just my take on it. others may have differing definitions for this stuff, but since i plan on entering, that's how i'll be voting on it.

study the picture. observe. see what's really there and notice what's not there as well. there is a LOT of misleading evidence in this one. i'll give you one clue so far that almost tripped me up. the children are standing in front of a backdrop. that is NOT a wall or room behind them ;)

one could literally spend a hundred hours on an image like this and still not get it all perfectly correct. it's a tricky restore challenge. like i said before, if working for a customer on this i'd be staying in close communication to see just how much they were willing to have me do. i've already gone back to nearly the start on this thing twice now. i just keep finding 'other' things. i'd also be very careful with the use of filters on this one. details have a way of dropping out directly in proportion to the number of filters used.

so, you see, i'm not only a compulsive nitpicker, i'm also didactic ;)

good luck :)

K.

so, you see, i'm not only a compulsive nitpicker..I wouldn't call discussing competition rules, nitpicking. After having organized bowling tournaments for many years, I know that if a rule isn't defined right, sooner or later there's going to be some trouble - even with real nice people!
I agree that there are differences between retouching, restoration and reconstruction, and there have been a few times that I almost started this discussion.
This competition calls for restoration "true to the image" but which image - the original (which doesn't actually exist any more) or the posted one (which is "distorted")?
Of course, everybody understands that some reconstruction is allowed here - otherwise the kid in the middle wouldn't get any eyes.
However, Murphy's Law is universal and if there is some "loophole" in the rules, someone sometime is going to use it.
I've already taken up too much of your time, hope this gets people thinking.

Rô

In my opinion, restore means trying to bring back a picture to the conditions it had when it was taken, remaining as close as possible to the 'given' original...

I think/guess that, when this picture was taken, the little girl sitting in the middle of it had eyes ... I also think/guess that, in the original picture, her little head wasn't misshapen ... as, the 'malformation' in our copy seems to be caused by the big scratch in the middle ....

Whenever scratches, spots, mold etc. are digitally removed from a picture, some kind of 'reconstruction' takes 'necessarily' place .... and not everybody may agree with it ... but, usually, that's what is being asked to do in restorations ....


1. Evaluate and correct the image’s tone & contrast
2. Dust, mold & stain removal
3. Eliminate scratches & cracks
4. Fill in missing information
and so on....

The key to a good restoration is remaining true to the image. You want to clean up and restore the image…not change it. ...otherwise .... why bother with all the work? .... :o:

I agree with Flora on this point. I view a restoration as bringing the photo back to as near to new/just taken as possible, but keeping the age of the photo within the restoration. Where detail is missing, I replace it with detail as close to the original as possible. Only if a person (when asked) refuses the extra detail, would I leave it with parts of the photo missing. If you look at the English Dictionary definition of restoration, I don't think I am far off with my take on it :bigthmb:
Restoration:
a:the act or process of returning something to its earlier good condition or position
Function: noun
b: the act of restoring or the condition of being restored: as a : a returning to a normal or healthy condition.

My own take on this, is to do as little as possible to change the image, whilst trying to return it to the state it was before the ravages of time and neglect worked on it.

Almost all restore work requires reconstruction, if you use the clone tool to cover a spot or blemish, you are by definition, reconstructing the image.

If this were a commissioned work, of course the clients wishes would be paramount, as its not, personal preferences and interpretations will determine the final output.

Just as personal preferences and tastes will determine the way entries are voted for.

Just want to wish everyone good luck with their entries.

Photoshop. Chris, glad to see you reconsidered your decision, and entered after all.

I'm going to run the risk of being a boring, pedantic nit-picker here.....

Let's change our profession - instead of being photo restorers, let's be automobile restorers.....
We have two cars to restore, one is a very common model and one of unknown origin.
The first one is well-documented with original plans, drawings, photos.
The second one doesn't have any information at all, just the battered car in your hands.

The first one you can restore (the act or process of returning something to its earlier good condition) but the second you just can't.
If the second is only slightly damaged then maybe nobody is going to disagree with your "restoration". But, if is badly damaged - or worse, with parts missing - then you are doing a "reconstruction" based on personal experience.
Here, of course, we are fixing up the second and not the first. There is no "original" which can be used as a base for restoration. The only information we have is the posted image and the rest is just inference and personal judgement / taste / investigation.

(just hope somebody out there will agree with my point. I need to take Duv's advice and get some sand between my toes!)

Rô

(just hope somebody out there will agree with my point. I need to take Duv's advice and get some sand between my toes!)

RôI agree with you Ro - I thought that it would be quite clear that was the intention! I suppose describing it is a restoration, is to make it clear that we should stick to strict restoration where we can, but where we have to, we must fall back on reconstruction. So where an object is damaged, but the shape/pattern etc of the original is still visible, we must restore it to the same original form as closely as possible. However where the original is totally obliterated, there we must reconstruct.

I therefore would think this only leaves reconstruction open in this photo to missing/badly damaged body parts.

DigitalCustom with the Alinari Archives has a model to Ethics Guidelines for the purpose of digital photo restoration, repair and reconstruction. The URL is:

http://www.digitalcustom.com/howto/restorationguidelines.asp

Any opinion about this document will be appreciated.

Thank you, Jaime, that is exactly what I've been ranting on about.
Rô

Jaime, that was very interesting. Thank you.

Roland, DO keep the sand out of your shorts when you get there!

Dave

I view the reconstruction argument like this.
Reconstruction is part of restoration, without it restoration of damaged photos would be impossible. If you use clone once, you have used reconstruction. If you put eyes on the middle child by using a reference image or symmetrical grafting, you would still be using reconstruction. How far you take the reconstruction is your choice. Those guidelines clearly state that reconstruction within a restoration is acceptable.
2.0.2 After-acquired damage, deterioration or injury may be repaired, provided the repair is executed consistent with the principles set forth in these guidelines.
3.0.4 Reference Reconstruction: A damaged element may be reconstructed by grafting from a reference image that is a fair representation of the damaged element. Reference reconstruction should be used cautiously and care should be taken to ensure that any reference image is a reliable match.
If you look at an example of RESTORATION from that very same site, you will see that reconstruction has been used, and they call it "Grade 5 restoration". Not only that but extra hair has been added to the left side of the face, and something hanging from the hat as well. Yet the title of the page is Restoration, should that be Reconstruction??????
http://www.digitalcustom.com/post/restoration.asp

Nobody can ever claim to be right on this matter, as each person has a level that they stop restoration/reconstruction. :bigthmb:

My only comment here, is that the guidelines from Jaime's link refer to archival images, where the motives for restoring may not be the motives of a client.

Context is all. An archival picture is a historical document, and retaining its integrity is of prime importance. Whereas a restoration done for a client may not have to stick so rigidly to such guidelines.

:bigthmb: Good point :wink:

Roland is right, unless a perfectly conserved second print of a picture exists, there is no way to 'go back to' or even to know what an 'original' was really like since 'the original' doesn't exist anymore ....

Even before reading the 'Ethics Guidelines for the purpose of digital photo restoration, repair and reconstruction' (thank you very much for the link, Jamie!) I always felt very strongly (and still do) about changing, adding or removing anything just because I didn't like it or I didn't like the 'original' composition of a picture ....

I have bored people to death with my 'quest' for 'looking for/bringing out/enhance' any detail however faded, faint etc. I could make out in a damaged picture .... but, if some 'vital' detail is damaged beyond recognition, following what I read on books about restoration or what information on this topic I found in Internet, if possible, I do 'borrow'....

Going back to Roland's car example I agree that for the 'well-documented' one we could use the term 'restoration' without any doubt ... while for the 'unknown origin' one 'fix' would be more appropriate ... but fixing the second car by replacing a missing unknown engine doesn't also mean 'restore' its 'presumed original' functionality? In other words ... are 'fixing' and 'restoring' mutually exclusive?

I think and accept that each one of us has a different 'flexibility of interpretation' for what 'guidelines' are concerned .... (otherwise we should also clear how exactly everyone understands the term 'guideline' as opposed to 'rule' ... :grin: )

But is it really necessary here? .... Why not simply enjoy these contests which should be fun for everybody ... where partecipants will do their best, compare notes with the others, and vote, rightly so, according to their taste anyway?

I, for one, vote for Dave's "DO keep the sand out of your shorts when you get there!" ... :) :) :)

Just a quick simple tip for people trying this for the time.
1/ Open the image and duplicate the layer.
2/ Erase everything below the big crack (including the black area in the crack)
You will now have a top half only that you can move to line up with the bottom half of the picture. If you look at the shoulder of the girl on the left, you can see the step in the line of her arm. Use that as a reference point and line the two sections up. This will give you a good base to work from :D

Chris, that's very nice and generous of you, to point out the "misalignment".

I noticed that some people had submitted pics with the step in alinement still in the picture. This was just a quick tip to get people started on a good base image :happy: . People may have noticed it, but not known how to fix it, and these contests are a learning process. If someone uses that tip and wins, good luck to them :happy: . They will have used it, and done a good job :happy:

Thank you chrishoggy. That's very nice of you to point out the misalignment. I've been working on the photo and did notice it, but never thought of trying to realign the lower half.

Lorraine

But is it really necessary here? .... Why not simply enjoy these contests which should be fun for everybody ... where partecipants will do their best, compare notes with the others, and vote, rightly so, according to their taste anyway?


I agreed with you, Flora. I think this must be the spirit of this contest.

Note that if you zoom in on the middle child once the 2 halves are lined up, you will see that you have a full left side eye.
Can you use this to rebuild the damaged right eye? the choice is yours :wink:

I was caught up in the idea of a single picture. It never occurred to me that the picture was torn. Funny what your eyes miss based on preconceived ideas. Thanks for the suggestion, chrishoaggy. That is the spirit and the reason I enter these contests. I love learning more about this fascinating process.

The discussion of restoration vis-a-vis reconstruction is quite practical. I remember struggling with this when an organization asked me to "restore" a copy of a group picture from their history files. Two of the faces in the group were so damaged I had no way of knowing what they looked like (I doubt that anyone else on the committee did either). After agonizing over the situation I simply left the damaged area for the faces. That served as a marker that others were in the photo but could not be restored. My decision was based on the possibility that one of the people or a relative might see my reconstruction and be offended. The committee seemed ok with that.

But is it really necessary here? .... No, not at all. I just wanted to raise a point that not all have considered. Judging from the replies in this thread, I think that it was not in vain.

I will try to avoid being boring and pedantic :tired: from now on.
Shame the nearest beach is 1500 Km from here. :o:

Rô

Forgive the delayed response…

A couple of clarifications re. the contest rules...

I presume that the rules proclude hand colouring?

The challenge seems a little problematic in some ways, as with the 800x600 resolution and in monochrome it may be hard to pick between contributions.
This will not be a colorization contest…just restore the image. And judging may be hard, but you may be surprised that even with minor changes to a photo everyone still has very unique styles.

TPaul,
I noticed in last months contest, only half of the participants actually voted.
If there's a mandatory entry to vote, how about mandatory voting as well.
This is no mandatory requirement to vote. I can only hope in the spirit of the site and learning that all participants will vote as well as comment on the images.

Looks like this contest got everyone really thinking about the meaning of restoration and how to approach it. Great discussion guys and gals! As for this contest, I think Gary said it best:

My only comment here, is that the guidelines from Jaime's link refer to archival images, where the motives for restoring may not be the motives of a client.

Context is all. An archival picture is a historical document, and retaining its integrity is of prime importance. Whereas a restoration done for a client may not have to stick so rigidly to such guidelines.

Also kudos to those that have pointed out things to look for, as well as added suggestions and tips towards this restoration. That’s exactly what I like to see in the discussion section! :D

hmm... let me see if i can clarify what i was trying to say in my original post on this. i'll use an example from the contest pic for may. at the bottom of the image is a carpet. near the back of that carpet you can see the pattern of the carpet, but as you move down the image that pattern fades to nothing. it's no longer there, no longer discernable and there's quite a bit of that part that is no longer discernable. it's not a small smudge or dust spec or something that a small use of clone is going to alter. and there is no way to tell from just the evidence in that picture as to how to rebuild that pattern. thus, in a 'restore' you would simply leave that area alone. in a 'reconstruct' you might do some investigation of period carpets or find another image that had such a carpet within it and use that information to rebuild your carpet pattern in the original.

thus, i'm only talking about the labels 'restore' and 'reconstruct' when used as the overall criteria for the work and not when you're talking about individual actions within that work. in other words, if a client came to me and said i want you to 'restore' this photo, i would think one thing, whereas if he came to me and said i want a 'reconstruction', i would think in other terms. thus, i'm only talking here about the use of those terms when applied to the main purpose of the work and not individual actions taken while doing the work. yes, one could and shld 'reconstruct' the eyes of the middle child. there is enough information there in the image itself to do this fairly reliably. the same is also true for the child on the right's left hand. by all means restore or reconstruct it. but the carpet, where the pattern is missing so much and so badly, is impossible to do reliably without some other information on which to base that. thus, i would simply leave that part alone in a 'restore'. sure, clean it up a bit, but without other information on which to base your work you're just not going to do it.

and that's really all i was referring to in my original post on the subject.

and chrishoggy, sshhhhhh, you're giving away secrets ;) yes, the photo is torn and someone attempted to put it back together. and that's one of the items i was referring to when saying that you really need to study this image :) and another way to do that is to make a selection out of one half of the image where the tear is and simply re-paste is back in the right place. this was my first step in working with this picture. everything else is secondary to that one.

K.

hmm... let me see if i can clarify what i was trying to say in my original post on this. i'll use an example from the contest pic for may.
*snip*
but the carpet, where the pattern is missing so much and so badly, is impossible to do reliably without some other information on which to base that. thus, i would simply leave that part alone in a 'restore'. sure, clean it up a bit, but without other information on which to base your work you're just not going to do it.

An interesting example Kraellin, as my gut feeling looking at that image that the carpet has not faded away, but that it appeared that way in the original print - be it through lighting, or masking. Therefore substituting another carpet would not just be reconstruction, but actually modification of the image.

I can't help but think that some of this discussion may be a little premature though, given it is a competition? (No matter how casual and friendly :wink: )

I feel the bottom half has faded. If you look at the pic below you will see that the shadow under the feet of the older boy and girl (red arrow)are different in colour. They both share the same light source, so should be roughly the same. If you look at the chair leg (green arrow), you can see a water mark outlining the damaged/faded area, this can also be seen on the carpet in areas. Note that the left front chair leg has next to no shadow cast on it in the faded area and looks flat, this again tells me that fading has taken place.
Also if you look at the very bottom of the picture, you can still make out the carpet grain/pattern, but the darker (pattern) area has faded to a fine trace.

I can't help but think that some of this discussion may be a little premature though, given it is a competition? (No matter how casual and friendly )
I note that the small tip I gave helped 2 people, and may improve their entry. That can only improve the contest by improving the entries submitted. Also people not knowing that little tip, may decide to enter when they see that they can get a good result from a simple method. :bigthmb:

The way I realigned the two parts of the image was to duplicate the image, then use the extract filter.

By using the highlight tool set to smart highlight, it is a very simple matter to draw along the line of the tear. Then extract the upper half.

Now use the move tool to nudge the extracted section 3 or 4 clicks to the right.

For me personally, the line between restoration and reconstruction seems to depend on how realistic I can make something look. If I'm trying to repair something in an image, but I can't make it look absolutely real or if it starts looking too "painted" then I know for myself, that I've crossed the line. At that point, if it's for a client, I'll ask them what they want me to do. Sometimes they'll provide additional images that I can use to realistically rebuild the damaged area, but most often they are more than pleased with what was able to be restored. If it's not for a client, then I usually just leave the area alone and clean it up as best I can since I have no more information available.

I think that the line between restoration and reconstruction is influenced by the skill level of the artist and is going to be a little bit different for everybody.

I can't help but think that some of this discussion may be a little premature though, given it is a competition? (No matter how casual and friendly :wink: )I would like to believe that this is a different type of competition*. Although it would be nice to be the best and win a prize, everybody who enters the competition is a winner. An on-going discussion of the work, is a valid experience and for those who actively participate the winnings are even higher.
So, yes, let's discuss the carpet, let's discuss the tear....and what about the clothes? - some people have made some decorative versions.

* by the fact that the images are posted and viewed by all before the deadline.

Rô
(1499 Km to go)

As far as the clothes go, I messed about with curves and filters to try and see what detail/patterns were there. I then went through many source images to try and find a good match. The boys clothing was a problem for me, as most of the source images (with that style of shirt) had waistcoats on. So his shirt has been made from 2 sources.
The little girls dress is only a small section of a source image, and the same idea for the big girls dress.
All the clothes were done on there own layers on around 30 opacity, that way it only gave a hint of detail, but let the aged look of the original come through :wink:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Rô
(1499 Km to go)

I am enjoying the on-going discussion about restoration and reconstruction. Thank you jaime for the guidelines. I appreciate the tips, but since this is a contest to use what we have learned from the site, maybe some things should be held back until the end.

Cathy :pleased:

Would appreciate any critique of my entry, and what technique I can use (in future) to improve. Thanks in advance.

Hmmm... sounds like we're getting close to the point where people start pointing out specific parts of other people's photos that (seem to) violate the rules of restoration. The fairness question is bound to come up soon (as in the editing debate) if 'early' entrants start to feel unfairly criticized. Carrying on a contest and a contest discussion at the same time makes for kind of an awkward situation. I just think that pointing out perceived flaws in other people' pics (directly or indirectly) while the contest is on-going will rub some the wrong way.

I agree Doug.

Cathy

At the end of the day, this contest isn't about who has the best way of doing things. It's about sharing ideas/techniques in order to get an end result. Each person is then judged on their end result, and they will never be the same (unless you use someones image as a base :lol: :blush: :bow: ). This point was cleared up for me in the last contest, and the spirit of the contests is to share what you do. The first post in this topic thread by T Paul clearly states
Add your comments, questions or general discussion about the May Contest entries as well as the contest itself here. This is also a great place to share your techniques or ask others about theirs.

I think you will find it's not against the rules to share techniques, but more or less in the rules that you do :D

Doug does have a point, though most who enter these contests seem to take criticism pretty well.

I would worry about rework. I think we established last contest that rework should be allowable right up to the deadline. What will happen if someone posts their entry, others criticize it, he goes back, reworks it and wins...I can hear the complaining already.

I agree with Chrishoggy that we have discussion and share but it seems we should wait till the entry deadline passes. Otherwise it stops being a contest and turns into a homework assignment.

Actually there are contests out there where people submit an entry and it is critiqued by fellow contestants. They then have the chance to resubmit their entry based on those suggestions before the end of the contest. It’s a great way to learn from each other!

What will happen if someone posts their entry, others criticize it, he goes back, reworks it and wins...I can hear the complaining already.
Thats not what I am doing though. I have given a small section of detail about what I did.
If someone thinks their entry could use a tip posted here, and they use it and win, I would be happy for them and proud that I/others helped that person win. They would have picked up a tip and tried it, then won because they did a good job of restoring the picture.
It seems that a few people don't like this idea, or don't agree with it. So I will share nothing else untill the end. :)

here's a suggestion for future contests: start the contest on the first of the month as normal (or roughly thereabouts). allow revisions up to a certain date, say the 20th of the month. after that, your entry is final, no changes. this lasts for 3 to 5 days, say, up to the 25th and then voting for the remainder of the month.

this would somewhat simulate working with a client. you do some work, show the client, ask for corrections, responses, suggestions and so on, and then present the final work. thus, someone could post a piece, a preliminary piece, and ask for tips, tricks, suggestions and so on up to the final deadline date.

i'd also be interested in a somewhat different contest where we're given an image to work with and as folks post early preliminary work, others could actually borrow that work and take it further or go a different direction actually using another's work. in this wise, something like chrishoggy's post about the realignment, he'd actually post having re-aligned the objects. others could then use his post to carry on with. it would be sort of a group project to get the best possible image based on a lot of different input. could be interesting or could be a mess, but might be fun ;)

K.

i'd also be interested in a somewhat different contest where we're given an image to work with and as folks post early preliminary work, others could actually borrow that work and take it further or go a different direction actually using another's work. in this wise, something like chrishoggy's post about the realignment, he'd actually post having re-aligned the objects. others could then use his post to carry on with. it would be sort of a group project to get the best possible image based on a lot of different input. could be interesting or could be a mess, but might be fun ;)

K.That wouldn't be a contest, but there is something similar already - 'ART TAG' - so you are describing 'restoration tag'!

It almost seems like we need to define what these contests are for - as it seems like the 'CHALLENGES' section fulfill most of what people are talking about with sharing ideas etc. As someone said earlier, it seems like the difference in a competition is to use your knowledge, judgement, eye for detail, assessment of what is required, and skills you've learned in this forum and elsewhere, not simply your skill which this would be if people are given pointers on everything they need to do etc.

I am really interested to hear people's techniques etc, and hope to learn a lot by doing so, but would prefer to hear them after entries have closed.

The contest discussion threads never close, so people can add their techniques and/or suggestions at any time! :)

Interesting discussion!

"....judging may be hard, but you may be surprised that even with minor changes to a photo everyone still has very unique styles."

My take on the definition of restoration....(because contest entrants have different skill levels, entries will be varied, however) if aiming for a true restoration, no "unique style" would be evident, and all entries would look almost identical.

Interesting discussion!

"....judging may be hard, but you may be surprised that even with minor changes to a photo everyone still has very unique styles."

My take on the definition of restoration....(because contest entrants have different skill levels, entries will be varied, however) if aiming for a true restoration, no "unique style" would be evident, and all entries would look almost identical. Indeed - this is what I was tring to get at Vikki, but you expressed it much better! Obviously there will be differences depending on skill, but the difference between the top entries who do master a 'true' restoration I suspect will be very hard to judge without being able to see the fine detail.

Even the comprehensive list of 'restoration rules' posted by Jaime, doesn't even attempt to address many of the big unknowns associated with restoring very old photographs. The combined effects of time, environment, and chemical processes cannot be 'truly' determined or reversed. We can say a photo is faded but we can only guess how faded. We can say a photo is dis-coloured but we can only guess at the original colours and tones... ditto levels, contrast, saturation, etc. I would suspect that even an 'archivists only' competition would result in widely varied results if they attempted to correct these elements.

I would suspect that even an 'archivists only' competition would result in widely varied results if they attempted to correct these elements.

Can't say that I agree with that entirely. Although certain specifics may be unknown, the results still should not vary widely.

Is the photo restoration some kind of art or a simple matter of knowledge and skills? The best photo restorer of the world, is a simple well trained technician or an artist?

I think it's both.

Is the photo restoration some kind of art or a simple matter of knowledge and skills? The best photo restorer of the world, is a simple well trained technician or an artist?I don't think they are mutually exclusive, but I think technical accuracy must be a very high component of restoration, and an ability to 'reign in' artistic flare. Many art students study the old masters by copying them - that is still art, maybe just using a different mix of uncontrolled creativity to skill?

An eye for detail, and an ability to judge what is / is not too much is an art in itself.

I wouldn't think there'd be much room for art in a discipline where every rendering should be identical. Though I agree that the 'goal' of the restoration is to be identical with the unknown original, it never quite will be, and where there's a little guessing there's a little art. I don't agree that being identical with other restorations equates to being closer to the original. Common results look more to me like an agreement to adhere to common standards, practices, and techniques.

I wouldn't think there'd be much room for art in a discipline where every rendering should be identical.

Yes, this is the key in this interesting discussion. If there is no room for personal interpretation in the restoration process we must conclude that two photo restorers, with the same level and expertise in photoshop, working on the same photo, would always finish their restoration work with almost two identical images.

When I use "artistic", with regard to restorations, I'm talking about the artisitic "ability" needed to recreate missing parts of an image.
To me, restoration is not about expressing oneself, and there is no place for one's personal "style" or interpretation of the original work. It's simply about repairing an exisiting work, someone else has created. If one were hired to restore an Amsel Adams, how appropriate would it be to incorporate "your" style into the image?
It's my observation, that evidence of individual style, merely shows a lack of ability, on the restorer, to do the job correctly.

It's my observation, that evidence of individual style, merely shows a lack of ability, on the restorer, to do the job correctly.

I mostly agree (but would replace the word 'correctly' with 'professionally'). What I'm saying is that professional restorers have adopted a professional style - they've all learned/been taught to restore to a common standard, using the same accepted practices and professional techniques. Many of these standards are borrowed from professional photography, ('proper' levels, 'proper' contrast), and collectively represent what the best and brightest have 'agreed' a good picture should look like. Applying these standards to unknowable originals results in consistently 'good' photos, but would be better described as group retouching.

a good example of 'restoring' is some of those art works that have become faded or water damaged. things like some of Michaelangelo's works on walls and ceilings. a 'restorer' is only allowed to bring back the original work as best as possible. the work is meticulous and very time consuming.

and that brings us to the other part of photographic restoration. time. most clients are not going to want to wait years for a pixel by pixel true restoration, a' la a work by Michaelangelo. thus, we tend to automate certain processes or compromise here and there for the sake of time, much like in this contest. we've got a deadline. only so much can be done within those constraints and, the clients are generally ok with this as long as the major salient points are covered and look better. thus, you have that age old management problem of speed versus quality. if you spend too much on quality, speed tends to suffer; go with speed and quality tends to suffer. the trick is to find out what the client needs and wants and that they understand that sometimes they cant have both.

thus, if there's an 'art' in restoration, one might say it's the management of those two things, speed and quality. i would also argue that 'art' and 'technical' perfection' are pretty much the same thing and that 'interpretation' and 'style' are sub-divisions of this. if i use a smudge tool where someone else uses a very clean, precise line type tool, his interpretation or style and technical use of those choices are what make him an artist over my sloppier smudge :)

and in going back to my original point of the differences between a restoration and a reconstruction, here's a good example from the retouch, restoration forum here at retouch.pro: http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10423
if you follow that thread all the way through, you'll see that we made several attempts to restore this image, but just couldnt definitively do it. after that process failed, even when getting the client to re-scan the image and trying again, we then moved into the area of reconstruction. other research of the client turned up supportive information of some of what we thought we were seeing in the original work and as soon as that 'other research' was done, we were moving into the area of reconstruction rather than just restoring. in other words, we were moving into the area of speculation in a much more pronounced way.

i would also invite folks to take a look at that thread. it's an interesting little bit of mystery as to what 'Muriel' actually looks like and we certainly havent concluded anything definite yet. i'd invite all the folks here to take their own stabs at this. i yet go back every few days and try something else out. which reminds me, i've got some gray hairs to go pluck out ;)

K.

When I use "artistic", with regard to restorations, I'm talking about the artisitic "ability" needed to recreate missing parts of an image.
To me, restoration is not about expressing oneself, and there is no place for one's personal "style" or interpretation of the original work. It's simply about repairing an exisiting work, someone else has created. If one were hired to restore an Amsel Adams, how appropriate would it be to incorporate "your" style into the image?
It's my observation, that evidence of individual style, merely shows a lack of ability, on the restorer, to do the job correctly.

I think this is also how I would interpret restoration. Unless requested by a client, personal style and expression should not have a place in the work.

Cathy

here's a question i have for all of you, especially the professionals doing this for a living, where do you draw the line on a given work? how much is enough and how much is too little?

in fact, let's make this two questions; how much feedback do you ask for/receive from the client DURING the process of r & r?

this contest example is a very good example of why i'm asking the above questions. i can see spending a LOT of time on this, but i can also see NOT spending that much time. where do you draw the line and why?

K.

I don't draw any lines. The customer always sets the level on what is to be done. I have no say in the matter, I just do as instructed :happy:

I agree with Chris.

When you're talking with the client and are presented with the originals (be they scans or physical prints), you can usually spot any serious trouble right away (ie damaged faces that may need reconstruction or missing/damaged sections) and you ask the client what they want you to do or how far they want you to go to try and rebuild/reconstruct those areas.

If I'm past that stage and working on a troubled area not discussed, then I see how much information is in the image to work with. When working on photos I obviously want the restoration to look as realistic as possible while keeping as true as possible to the original. If there isn't enough information in the image to restore it to a believable level of realism without taking extreme or heroic measures then I bring it to the attention of the client and ask them what they want me to do.

I think the line is where there isn't enough information to restore something without borrowing things from other source material or recreating/repainting them from scratch. If that's what the client wants... no problem, but that's when the red flags start popping up for me.

I also agree with Chris. When I am given design direction I just do it. I give my input and ideas, but the final instructions are the ones that I follow.
I consult the client if I have problems or questions about the work. I feel I am finished if they are happy with the results. My work is in canvas art design and not photo restoration, so I don't really know how it works in that field.

Cathy

Hey guys, guilty as charged! I thought this was a contest to have fun, help build our skills and show our creativity while staying within the guidelines given. Why so serious? I know we do have people that are already professionals entering, but for us amateurs (not sure that's spelled right), we are happy to have a site such as this that helps us attain our goals and let us have fun doing it. All of the advise is great and in the "real world" it will come in handy, but for now, let's just have fun and show what we have learned. If I had a customer, naturally I would do exactly what they wanted done to their portrait, but since there is no customer, as such, I used my imagination and did it the way I thought it would look good. If I never won that would be OK, I just like being in the running. Not all may agree, but I thought we were just having fun. I have learned so much already and wouldn't trade the experience for a nickel!

This IS a place to learn new things and share. Someone a bunch of posts back asked us how we handle the restoration/reconstruction issue with real clients. That's all. So... we were sharing.

Hi guys - I was enjoying the dialogue while not participating. Constructive exchange of ideas/opinions is always a good thing. I have finally started playing with the May contest image - down to the wire again. Anyhow, I would love to see more dialogue on the regular challenges. It would be great to have a discussoin such as the one started on the May challenge. Right now, there is very little feedback on entries, or am I missing something?
Keep the ideas and opinions coming!
Margaret.

there's an old saying that goes something like 'dont ask for advice; you might get it.'. so to me, to critique someone's entry, sort of fits that old saying in that i dont want to step on toes, sensitivities, particularly when un-asked for. it's very easy to crush a dream by becoming a 'critic'. thus, i tend to stay away from it (and also tend not to ask for advice/critiques ) :)

are there pieces that could stand improvement, sure; my own included (though it's not submitted yet). and i've also seen some that have shown me where i've missed something.... which has resulted in me re-starting this thing about 3 times now ;) and quite frankly, i think i could easily spend a year on this thing, going grid by grid in an archaeological type style, and cleaning it all up pixel by pixel. so, we see a number of shortcuts or automations done for the sake of time. and i'm no exception to this either. i know i've fudged quite a bit over what might be ultimately possible in a piece like this. but that's part of the contest. time.

the one thing that is also often missed in a critique is 'what did they do right?'. it's so very easy to shred someone's work by only pointing out all the little things they did wrong and forget to praise for what they did right. and in that vein i've seen some very interesting pieces thus far. one person will do a reconstruction on a part i wouldnt have thought to do and do it quite well, while another might focus on another part and do that completely differently from what i might have done. i'd even had the idea of taking everyone's entry and pulling various pieces from each one that i really liked and making a composite, just to see what it would look like. time and sanity, however, have kept me from doing that so far :)

so, it's sort of a do unto others as you would have them do unto you thing. if i go critic on their work, then it's only fair that they do the same to mine.... and i'm just not sure i would want that ;)

K.

When I use "artistic", with regard to restorations, I'm talking about the artisitic "ability" needed to recreate missing parts of an image.
To me, restoration is not about expressing oneself, and there is no place for one's personal "style" or interpretation of the original work. It's simply about repairing an exisiting work, someone else has created. If one were hired to restore an Amsel Adams, how appropriate would it be to incorporate "your" style into the image?
It's my observation, that evidence of individual style, merely shows a lack of ability, on the restorer, to do the job correctly.

Thanks Vikki for your clear explanation of what is restoring a photo.

Perhaps the nature of this discussion is related with the issue of the status of the photography in Art. This is a very well known matter of controversial between photographers and painters since his birth. Although photography can be found in modern museums, displayed in galleries of art and sold in auctions, the true is that his nature (science, technique, art?) and his status are still an object of discussion in the academic world. As an example, in the FAQ section of the Art Renewal Center, one of the best museums of art on line (and also known for his opinions against modernism in Art), you can read the following question and answer:

Q: What about photography, isn't that art?

No. My position is that photography, which can indeed be a wonderful and excellent thing, is not actually an art form per se. A photographer can be more accurately said to "document" something by showing the audience exactly what was there (when well done, he does this using some of the same techniques that an artist might such as composition, selecting contrast levels, etc.) rather than recreating what was there in light of an expressive goal which allows a great deal of freedom to adjust what is there and how it looks which is unavailable to the photographer. That being the case, since the goals of a photographer and an artist are different (one being to document what is there and the other to express an idea effectively) they should be judged by different standards. I hate to repeat myself, but my position on this seems to be consistently misunderstood. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with photography. Photography is a wonderful thing. It's just not the same kind of thing as art is, that's all. (Brian K. Yoder)”

For further reference:
Art Renewal Center
http://www.artrenewal.org/

I think there are different kinds of photography. Newspapers etc. document events, things while photographers such as Ansel Adams use perspective, light, contrasting images,angles, filters to create a work of art.
By the way, when I said there seems little feedback to the entries, I meant in the regular challenges section.
Margaret.

Margaret, I agree with you regarding the lack of participation and discussion in the challenges.

I think one reason is that it is outside the forum. Personally I visit here regualarly, but my link is straight to the forum, so I do not see the challenges without having to 'seek them out'. I understand the reason why they were moved off into a seperate section, so that feedback could be submitted for each entry seperately, they could be viewed as a filmstrip etc, but it means they are rather 'hidden away'.

It would be great I think if they went back into the 'Challenges' section of the forum in the form of an announcement and discussion thread, with a link to the actual submission/viewing area. That would mean more people would view it in the process of browsing the forum, and there could be general discussions, a well as feedback on particular entries.

As a newcomer, I may not know all the reasons why the challenges were moved, but I think it would be great if we could reintroduce a thread in the forums for them.

I have also noticed that the regular challeges are not getting much feedback. Being new myself I was wondering why, as it seems that the older challenges have lots of comments.

Cathy

Q: What about photography, isn't that art?

No. My position is that photography, which can indeed be a wonderful and excellent thing, is not actually an art form per se. A photographer can be more accurately said to "document" something by showing the audience exactly what was there (when well done, he does this using some of the same techniques that an artist might such as composition, selecting contrast levels, etc.) rather than recreating what was there in light of an expressive goal which allows a great deal of freedom to adjust what is there and how it looks which is unavailable to the photographer. That being the case, since the goals of a photographer and an artist are different (one being to document what is there and the other to express an idea effectively) they should be judged by different standards. I hate to repeat myself, but my position on this seems to be consistently misunderstood. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with photography. Photography is a wonderful thing. It's just not the same kind of thing as art is, that's all. (Brian K. Yoder)”


Somewhere in this forum is a pretty exhaustive discussion on this topic of whether photography is art. If someone can locate it, you might find it interesting.

Also, one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, Leo Tolstoy, defines in an essay "What is Art" , in a way that I found extremly interesting and helpful. You can find it here. http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

Cheers
Dave

.....Leo Tolstoy, defines in an essay "What is Art" ...Duv, that's very interesting (*).
Fits in pretty well with something I've been mulling over....

Here at RetouchPRO I like to mix in with the two sides - with the restoration folk and the arty types. (**)
- On the restoration side the problem is to not let any "personal" (see Tolstoy) ART enter the the final image.
- On the arty side the folks start with a photo and try to introduce personal art. The problem there is exactly the opposite! Just putting in brush strokes and simplifying the colours many times may make it look a bit like a painting, but that doesn't make it ART.

Sorry about the hijack (again), just thought I'd share a thought.

Rô

(*) #35 could start a revolution!
(**) OK, the geeks too!
Yeah, I know 1.498Km to go

Also, one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, Leo Tolstoy, defines in an essay "What is Art" , in a way that I found extremly interesting and helpful. You can find it here. http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html
Duv - very interesting essay - no mention of the tools, just the emotional connection. I'm going to read it again as it is quite deep.(understatement).
Caitlin - yes, that would be great!

The beauty of Tolstoy's essay is that it takes Art out of the mind and into the heart, where it always should be. It seems then that Art can be almost anything as long as there is an emotive response among humans..there must be a sender and there must be a receiver. Which makes me wonder how a monkey throwing paint on a canvas can truly be called Art. However, maybe we're getting a bit off topic here.

Cheers
Dave

Which makes me wonder how a monkey throwing paint on a canvas can truly be called Art. That's "upper-class art"?

Rô

By Duv - Which makes me wonder how a monkey throwing paint on a canvas can truly be called Art.
Depends though - because if other monkeys bond emotionally with the messy canvas I guess that's art in monkey world. My authority is Tolstoy. I know - enough already. What forum is this again??

Depends though - because if other monkeys bond emotionally with the messy canvas I guess that's art in monkey world. My authority is Tolstoy. I know - enough already. What forum is this again??

And of course if they sell their art, that would be Monkey Business.

Dave

I just found this site and this is my first time doing this but I thought I would give it a try.

This one is quite difficult for me, but here it is.

Can someone move soleah entry over to the correct thread, or it will be missed in the voting :sad:

Only Doug or T Paul can do that ....

... Fact is the May Contest Thread was closed Yesterday 22-5 ... as specified at the beginning ....


THE RULES:
1. Contest will run from 1 May to 22 May 2005. Deadline for entries is 5pm EDT 22 May 2005.

LOL, didn't spot the date :lmao: thought it was in time :cool:
Never mind, tis still a gr8 effort :bigthmb:
Shame you didn't get it in within the limit soleah :cry: as it would have been a front runner in my opinion :happy:

..... as it would have been a front runner in my opinion :happy:In mine too!!!!!
Great job Soleah!!!! ...

I agree too with Chrishoggy and Flora. You did a great job of restoration Soleah.

It's ok. Rules are rules. :depressed

Actually, I was undecided whether to join the contest or not. My previous attempt looked too muddy after spending hours on it, I gave up weeks ago. I was sidetracked with something else and then :idea:, a simple idea hit me. That is, after the deadline, which I thought was on the 23rd. Sorry, if I confused anybody with my late post.

Chris, Flora, Jaime: Thank you for the great feedback. It's very encouraging. To be recognized by a group of talented "artists", that's something to me.

I still want to learn how the others did it, especially on the clothes. That's the one that stumped me.

soleah,

very nice.

the one thing folks are quite critical of in the voting so far, is the baby's eyes, and i think you missed here a bit. from everything i could tell, the baby is looking the same way its head is turned. you've got them going the other way. if you look at the original again, before correcting for the tear, you can make out most of her right eye and it's very distinctly looking to her left front. i think it was suchvy that did the same thing and if i remember correctly, this is why he didnt make my top 5.

but, you would have made my top 10 for sure. after that, i'd have had to compare each top 10 to each other to determine it further. but overall, a very nice piece!

now, for everyone else, i'm curious as to the voting and voting comments and original criteria of this contest. this is a restore work. we're to bring the picture back to its original state. now, what i'm curious about is, are folks voting on the basis of bringing this piece back to a good condition for present time, or, are they voting based on how the original looked WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN? these would be quite different effects. bringing it back to its original state would mean back to the state it was in when the photographer or lab assistant or whomever, first developed the negative and then the print, NOT how it would look today if it had been preserved well. you'd still see aging effects in that case, fading, discoloration and so on. so, i'm curious as to what folks think it looked like back when it was first taken. did photos come out only in sepia tones back then? was the background truly that faded at the time it was taken? was the carpet already worn out at the time the photographer opened his shutter? things like that.

K.

Thanks, Kraellin.

The baby is indeed looking at her left. From what I could make out of the photo, she's also round-eyed and not squinting like the boy.

It's a matter of sacrificing one detail for another. I'm sure succhy must have done the same. (Excellent restoration, by the way! :thumbsup: )

Either way, would be fine. A combination of both would even be better.

Now, I do believe that this photo was originally printed in black and white. However, I find adding back some of the "antique" or "sephia" colorization gives a nostalgic/historic feel to the photo. This is vintage after all.

I think your restoration was beautiful soleah. One question...why do you think that the photo was originally black and white?. Many of the vintage photos that I have been looking at are sepia toned, and I understand that this color was common around the turn of the century. When restoring, is there some way to know what tone to make the photo?

Most photos have a paper texture, and I was wondering how much of that should be kept in a restoration, or should it be completely smoothed out?

Cathy :)

One question...why do you think that the photo was originally black and white?. Many of the vintage photos that I have been looking at are sepia toned, and I understand that this color was common around the turn of the century. When restoring, is there some way to know what tone to make the photo?

The sepia toning in vintage photos was not always intended. Original black and white albumen prints tends to yellowing and fading as a chemical deterioration due to the age. However many albumen prints were intentionally toned by the photographer.

The sepia toning in vintage photos was not always intended. Original black and white albumen prints tends to yellowing and fading as a chemical deterioration due to the age. However many albumen prints were intentionally toned by the photographer.

When analyzing a photo for restoration,and it is not specified by a client, how do you determine what color it should be?

Cathy :)

When analyzing a photo for restoration,and it is not specified by a client, how do you determine what color it should be?

Cathy :)

Hi Cathi,

Due to the nature of the deterioration albumen prints, I think is not always easy to determine if the original was toned or not. Although grays blacks albumen prints were not uncommon, the fact is most of the albumen prints were toned. Probably the picture of the contest was originally toned.

Thanks Jaime. I think I will study up a bit. I think it is interesting.

Cathy :)

CONGRATULATIONS to Caitlin!!!! :bigthmb:

Well done to all who partecipated in this contest!!! :)

Wow! Thanks so much everyone. It was such a tough restoration, and I won't pretent that I didn't have to put quite a lot of work into this one! I've had a couple of requests to detail some of my steps, so I'll try to post that when I get some time to write it up this weekend.

Thanks again, and congrats to everyone else who participated. (I think just entering this one you deserve an award! )

Yes - good work everyone and especially the top five and Caitlin. The differences in the entries were very interesting! I found the clothes the most difficult.
Margaret.

Congratulations Caitlin, and the rest who placed. It was a hard one. I really enjoyed the challenge, and I think everyone who participated did a great job.

Cathy :pleased:

Congratulations to Caitlin and to the rest of the winners! Great jobs of restorations.

I promised I would detail some of the steps I used in restoring the kids. I really hope some others can detail their step in this contest, and future ones - as I know I learn heaps reading how others tackle these challenges!

I started with the standard - a levels adjustment and hue/saturation adjustment layers.

I actually had to restart at one point a fair way into the restore, as I wasn’t happy with my join of the two halves of the picture, but once I was happy with that and merged the two halves, I sharpened the whole image with USM (I may have overdone this slightly.)

Then a duplicate layer with a fairly strong Dust and Scratches layer. Flora’s explanation of the best way to uses D&S in another thread was a revelation to me – and I really used it to advantage in this restore. I selectively erased that on a layer mask to reveal the finer details of face, edges of clothing, lace work etc from the layer beneath.

The rest was largely laborious hand retouching with clone, and heal tools on a cleanup layer (or several in fact)

I got my baby eyes and boys hand from the photo collection at Library of Congress by searching for children with a similar ‘look’. I thought the baby’s eyes were good as they had a similar shape to the other children’s – rather than being too round. I know that a criticism that some people had of a few of the restorations was that the baby was looking the wrong way, and in fact mine was too until the last moment. A family member pointed it out to me, so a quick flip and a bit of a tweak got them right.

I found the children’s clothing the hardest to deal with, and tried a variety of ways to get detail into the baby’s dress, none of which I was happy with. I settled on some very subtle grey shadow areas, and rebuilding some of the lace detail (with the clone tool, with reduced opacity) I tried not to add too much detail that I wasn’t confident was originally there – so the waistcoat of the girl I felt I could see a hint of, though I can’t be certain it wasn’t dirt.

The final step was a run through Neat Image – I was amazed how well it cleaned up the final result, without impacting noticably on the detail.

I gave up on this early on, but a week before the close decided to give it another go. I don’t know how long I spent on it – but it was quite a lot!

I’m curious TPaul – where did this photo come from? Is it anonymous or relatives of a member here?

Attached is a screenshot of my Dust & Scratches layer, and a version just before some final cleanup and Neat Image. Nb. The other layers in the Dust & Scratches image were not my final, as I resaved as a new file before proceeding to my next stage.

congratulations caitlin! and to all who entered. it was a very difficult piece.

now why do i feel like i just completed my final exams at school and only got a C+? ;) it was quite fascinating watching the entries come in and seeing how each had treated this area or that. and if i were re-doing it i'd take some quite different actions than before. and i think that's the main point here....learning. so, for me, no matter how i placed in the contest, i still won in the sense of having gained something. so, thanks to our hosts and thanks to all who entered!

and yes, i'd be curious in knowing where this photo came from also :)

K.

The photo was one I bought in an antique store from a bin of old photos. When I go through an antique store I always check through their photos; they can be an excellent source of old photos to practice your retouching skills on.

The photo was fairly faded and had been torn and glued to the back of cardboard...hence the slight shift that needed correcting. There was no information on the back so I don't know who they are.

Caitlin,

KUDOS for sharing your steps! It's nice to see how different people approach an image and the steps they take to accomplish the final result! Thanks!! :happy:

Congratulations, Caitlin! :bigthmb: You deserve #1!

Thanks Caitlin for sharing your steps. I found it interesting that you used USM early on and finished with Neat Image. I usually do these in the opposite order and almost always END with USM, although in this case I didn't sharpen at all. (ran out of spare time).
Thanks again - Margaret.

I hate to revisit the monkey business discussion but TOO funny, Duv - this was in today's paper.
Jun 20, 4:47 PM EDT

Paintings by chimpanzee outsell Warhol

LONDON (AP) -- Monkey business proved to be lucrative Monday when paintings by Congo the chimpanzee sold at auction for more than $25,000.

The three abstract, tempera paintings were auctioned at Bonhams in London alongside works by impressionist master Renoir and pop art provocateur Andy Warhol.

But while Warhol's and Renoir's work didn't sell, bidders lavished attention on Congo's paintings.

An American bidder named Howard Hong, who described himself as an "enthusiast of modern and contemporary painting," purchased the lot of paintings for $26,352, including a buyer's premium.

The sale price surpassed predictions that priced the paintings between $1,000-$1,500.

"We had no idea what these things were worth," said Howard Rutkowski, director of modern and contemporary art at Bonhams. "We just put them in for our own amusement."

Congo, born in 1954, produced about 400 drawings and paintings between ages 2 and 4. He died in 1964 of tuberculosis.

His artwork provoked reactions ranging from scorn to skepticism among critics of the time, but Pablo Picasso is reported to have hung a Congo painting on his studio wall after receiving it as a gift.

"There's no precedent for things like this having been sold before," Rutkowski said.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.