Add your comments, questions or general discussion about the Nov 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 see you've given us another easy one....not! i'm beginning to believe that most of the challenge/contest moderators around here are sadists ;) of course, that makes all of us working on it, masochists. a tricky image indeed! shld be fun.

Craig

i will most likely change this at some point, but if i cant i'll just live with this one.

oh, and you need to include the actual deadline time, T. you've got the voting date, but not the cutoff for entry time.

Craig

edit: replaced my first with this current one. may happen yet again :)


You might want to double check the rules...;)

Nov Restoration Challenge:

THE RULES:

1. Contest will run from 1 Nov to 23 Nov 2005. Deadline for entries is 6pm EST 23 Nov 2005.

I have to complain , I know am not skilled but I refuse to enter a contest that calls for retouching this (see attachment) ... and from that come up with a baby like the one shown by Craig ?? :ditsy: :dizzy: :aghast:

The best way to download the images is by rightclicking (or Cmd/Ctrl clicking) on the link and using "Save Target As".

OK I am sorry. First for making a comment at the posting thread and second about the complaint, guess I am too sleepy and wasn't doing it right :grin: :blush:
Now I downloaded it.
Thank you T Paul !! :wavey:

You're welcome :)

sorry T. one of these days i'll learn to read.

Craig

I have to complain , I know am not skilled but I refuse to enter a contest that calls for retouching this (see attachment) ... and from that come up with a baby like the one shown by Craig ?? :ditsy: :dizzy: :aghast:Hope this isn't against the rules! :blush:
Just had to help a bit - Try turning it sideways - See it now?

;)
Rô

I am abit confused here, when i downloaded it, it was a picture of a baby, did i download the wrong one? :lol:

That 5mb tif file seems to have a lot of jpg artifacting in it. :( Is it meant to be that way??

Caitlin - 5MB? I downloaded the 8MB file - there doesn't seem to be any JPEG artifacts (and there shouldn't be, given that its a TIFF file, unless it was resaved from a JPEG :dizzy: ). But, there is something like a matte texture to the surface that is a part of the actual photo. Just makes it more fun... :rolleyes:

- Kurt

caitlin,

i noticed that too. to me it seemed like the hi-res scan had picked up the paper texture and i went 'oh oh, looks like an FFT job'. so, i worked on the smaller-res scan :)

Craig

Caitlin - 5MB? I downloaded the 8MB file - there doesn't seem to be any JPEG artifacts (and there shouldn't be, given that its a TIFF file, unless it was resaved from a JPEG :dizzy: ). But, there is something like a matte texture to the surface that is a part of the actual photo. Just makes it more fun... :rolleyes:

- KurtSorry - I meant 8mb... I think it must be a jpg resaved as TIF? See attached

I know it says no whacky backgrounds but I didn't think adding the toys would be since a lot of professional photos have props. Still, if it is where it doesn't qualify, please let me know so I can change it. Although, I'll miss the cute little ducky :( LOL

Still if someone could let me know either way that would be great. It's my first time entering in one of these things.

... I think it must be a jpg resaved as TIF? See attachedExactly.....the luminosity is in 8 * 8 blocks, the colours in 16 * 16 blocks and they both start counting exactiy at the top left corner....A "perfect" low-quality jpg.

Now, mix that with a 4.5 pixel wide paper texture...

...no problem :rambo: :rambo: .

Rô

This means a non-painted no-wacky-background something-a-dad/mom-would-put-on-his/her-desk-at-work portrait ....Questions? Wow, T, didn't know you were a lawyer.

But, yes, I do have a question. A professional studio photo when it gets to the hands of dad/mom, may have some treatment already done - such as vignetting. If, as I believe, this too should not be allowed, then there may be a need to introduce a supplementary "straight-out-of-the-camara" clause.

Rô

The challenge this month is to restore the photo so that it looks like a professional studio photo. This means a non-painted no-wacky-background something-a-dad/mom-would-put-on-his/her-desk-at-work portrait that actually tries to use the various retouching/restoring/compositing skills we try to promote here at RetouchPRO". Questions?
Ok, the rule-questioning door has been cracked open, so I have to let myself in. The rules state "...to restore the photo..." then further on "...use the various retouching/restoring/compositing skills...".

A strict definition of "restore" is to accurately and faithfully reconstruct the original photograph, the goal being to recreate the photo to it's original form as closely as possible. This means no vignetting, no altering of the background, no props, no color changes, etc. if not part of the original. Anything else constitutes a "retouch", "manipulation", or "substantive modification".

Are we looking for the best "restoration" (a la Fratelli Alinari), or the best "retouch/manipulation/restoration"?

- Kurt

That's what I needed to hear Kurt, I just wasn't comprehending I guess. Ok, back to the drawing board. :)

This monthly nitpickfest is going to cost us all a great moderator. And if T quits, no more contests (because she's far more patient than I am).

I for one would hate to be in T Pauls shoes.
Come on guys give her a break.
I know people are trying to clarify rules to the letter, but it's not that sort of contest. It's fun and learning!

It must be so time consuming, even soul destroying, but maybe sometimes rewarding.

Let's just do what we always do, submit our entries and go for it!
If people like it, then they'll vote for it.

T.Paul - I think I speak for all members who have enjoyed your forums and contests,

THANK YOU,

In my "door-opening" post above I was only trying to be helpful (really!). As I know from other experiences, and as has already happened here in other contests, what starts out as a just a nit can grow to an elephant by the end of a contest.

I was trying to nip the nit in the bud. ;)

Now walking through Kurt's open door and coming back to an old point.......
Wouldn't it be easier if we had some very well-defined keywords? That way T wouldn't have to spell it all out every month. So she could just say....
Restoration - yes;
Reconstruction - yes;
Retouch - yes;
Manipulation - no;
Art - no;
etc....and if anyone has any questions - just refer them to the "official RetouchPRO glossary".

As always, I am here to help - so if T needs/wants some, she can always count on me.

Rô
[edit - I second Shalford]

This monthly nitpickfest is going to cost us all a great moderator. And if T quits, no more contests (because she's far more patient than I am).
Must agree, thats why I have stopped entering :( . Best bet is to read the rules, then work from what you understand the rules to be.
Fingers crossed the rules matter can be dropped, and people can get back to having fun in contests :bigthmb:

Ohhh boy. Doug, I really hesitated posting my question for fear that someone might perceive it to be nitpicking, given the sensitivity we've seen in past contests. Guess I should've heeded. OTOH, it's a shame we now have to feel like we're walking on egg shells.

Really, I'm not debating or arguing a position, I'm not questioning anybody's interpretation, I'm not trying to pin T to the mat on the rules, and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to drop out by my asking, especially T :depressed. Just looking for a simple answer to what I believed to be a simple question.

If you deem this to be nitpicking, ok fine by me. Let's ignore the question and move on. The take away? No more questions - whatsoever - about the rules in the future.

Twin Kissed - please don't change anything in your entry based on my post. I was only looking for the same clarification as you and Rô.

- Kurt

Ok WOAH!!!! Hold up.... while I may misunderstand things here and there, I'm sure I'm not the only one and I had noooooo idea that by me asking a question to make sure I was in the guidelines would be a problem. I was under the impression that that is what this topic was for. It even says that help and suggestions from others is encouraged so how would that make us lose a moderator? Anyone could have helped me with my question. Maybe I'm not quite awake enough today to understand this whole nitpick thing but I personally didn't see any nit picking going on. I saw questions and a little humor. What did I miss? As for it's for fun and learning. That's why I asked a question, I want to do it the right way and learn through doing it the right way. By asking my question, someone highlighted the part I had over looked and I was glad to see that. If it didn't have rules it wouldn't be much of a contest and if questions couldnt' be asked about the rules it wouldn't be much of a challenge because you could do anything to the pictures. I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding but I don't think there was ever an issue to begin with and I'm sorry if I'm wrong.

I'm adding this... sometimes when people read things it seems different than meant. I am not mad or being sarcastic but speaking from how I feel. No one is to take this as a personal attack ok? :)

Twin Kissed - please don't change anything in your entry based on my post. I was only looking for the same clarification as you and Rô.


No worries, I was glad you helped me out. I had fun redoing it and ended up liking it more.

I doubt anyone that hasn't done it can fully appreciate how draining it is to be a moderator. And the reason we have moderators is because I couldn't take the drain on my own. It has nothing to do with taking anything personally, just the day-in day-out grind. But our mods are resigning, one by one. I've left some of them listed as mods, but that's pure denial on my part.

I wrote the contest description, not T. These contests are primarily aimed at professionals (the "pro" in RetouchPRO), though everyone is welcome to enter. But interpreting a customer's instructions is as necessary a professional skill as cloning or masking.

So there's no need to "walk on eggshells", just be professional.

I wrote the contest description, not T. These contests are primarily aimed at professionals (the "pro" in RetouchPRO), though everyone is welcome to enter. But interpreting a customer's instructions is as necessary a professional skill as cloning or masking.

So its unprofessional to ask for clarification of clients instructions? Thats all anyone was doing.

I don't think this has to be so difficult. Vote as YOU think the entries are according to your interpretation of the rules.
You don't have to vote for an entry if it does not live up to your interpretation of the rules. Even if it is an wonderful artwork.
And in this case I think a parent would like his/her baby to look unmanipulated/not visibly retouched.

Keep up the good work managing this site!

Best Regards Mats

Why do we get this every month. Someone or other nitpicking on how the rules should be interpreted. What does it matter. Everyone will interpret things differently, and everyone will be right, as far as they're concerned.

Just post your images. If members like it, they will vote for it (as determined by their individual interpretations of the rules) if not, they won't.

I enjoy the contests for what they were designed to be, a free exchange of imagination and technique, where we could each enjoy and learn from other's skills. If its just going to descend into a bitching contest, I for one will soon be stopping my entries (no great loss some may think).

Give the moderators a break, and for once just enter the contest, interpret the rules as YOU understand them, and live with the results.

Gary.

So why exactly is there a discussion forum?

I believe this is the reason:

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

Rules are always open to personal interpretation. If a rule is open to clear misinterpretation such as "Only one entry per person" that I asked about in my first ever entry, then I would hope people didn't object to that. When it comes down to defining the meaning of a word in a rule, it gets a bit silly.

We all need to read this bit again
Finally, please remember that this is a friendly contest and suppose to be a learning experience. Tips and suggestions to help others are highly encouraged.

I honestly don't understand what the problem is here. The questions so far has seemed quite legitimate, and certainly not unfriendly. The question raised by twinkissd and byRo was interesting. The goal "restore the photo so that it looks like a professional studio photo" in itself contains contradictions, as the photo clearly wasn't a professional studio photo in the first place, so a pure restore will not acheive that result. Though at times they have possibly gone a bit over the top, I find these discussions quite interesting and worthwhile. Certainly it would be better to sort such questions out early in the contest, rather than at the end.

Half of the solution of any problem is in it's correct identification.

If throughout all these months we've been using up a lot of hot air and organizing nitpikfests ( :cool: I'll bring the beer :hat: ), then it is irrefutible that something is wrong.

This whole site works so well because everyone is ready to cooperate. Some bring problems, others help solve them - everybody learns something.
In the contests, unfortunately, attitudes have been rather different. It is a competition, but the prize is not a million dollars. The winners are all that participate.

Yes, there is a problem in the wording of the rules. Now let's see what we can do to help. I see two directions...

1) Simplify. I think that this is where Doug is going. No need to say what can and can't be done. Just give us the original and say "The end client is mom/dad". Let the professionalism of each determine how they should arrive at the final product and how they should judge the other's renderings.

2) Exact definitions. (Like I posted yesterday). Say which techniques can, and can not, be used in the contest. Difficult part here is that the techniques are not well-defined. Retouch? Restoration? Manipulation?

I feel that the contests have been trying to go in the two directions at the same time. My suggestion would be to choose only one or the other.

Anybody else want to help?

Rô

I agree with you completely about the wording issue Ro - I think that (and I intend no offence to TPaul or Doug here) that there is generally a degree of instruction on how the task should be done in the rules - but it does not fall in either camp as you say, so then leads to questions for clarification. Personally I'd opt for your option 1, but either would work.

Having said that I don't personally have any problems with what people are describing as 'nitpicking' - it seems to be just another expression of the people on this forum willingness to share ideas :dizzy:

Help? Happy to help in any way needed :)

Gary, DITTO!

To me the 'simplify direction' is the only way to go. The other approach is limiting creativity and is not relevant. It is the result that should count.
The result should be judged with the given scenario in mind.

I'm going to make this my last input on this, as I am not entering because of this nitpicking. It has been said that there is a need for some general directions on how this should be done. Everything you need to know, has been given.

The challenge this month is to restore the photo so that it looks like a professional studio photo. This means a non-painted no-wacky-background something-a-dad/mom-would-put-on-his/her-desk-at-work portrait that actually tries to use the various retouching/restoring/compositing skills we try to promote here at RetouchPRO".

That is as clear as day to me. It leaves the door open to use any skills you have to fix this photo, and gives a guide to what is wanted as the end result.

Geez! All I asked was about the props I threw in my first picture. I wasn't really even asking a moderator. I was asking the other people on this board. This is getting quite ridiculous. This was the first time I did one of these contests and was asking a friendly question. Normally around here you get friendly answers. I was happy Kurt pointed it out to me. I fixed it and that was the end of it. There is no need for making a mountain out of a molehill. So I overlooked something which made me misinterpret. It's called long hours, four kids, being exhausted. To me this has turned into more of a nitpick fest on who asks questions and what kinds of questions. I am so suprised at how this topic has gotten. I have read other months discussions and there were questions in there so.... ummmm... what is the big deal here? Talk about making a person feel unwelcome and taking the fun out of a simple contest. What fun is it to basically being ridiculed for asking a question to whom I thought were friendly people? I'm so disappointed. :(

Personally, I didnt see a problem with the toys - in fact I thought it was in ingenious way of covering up the missing foot. The rules say to restore it to look like a professional studio shot. It doesnt specify that it has to be the photo that was taken. It also says to use the various compositing, retouching and restoring skills that are promoted here - to me that says that background replacement (ala Bobs entry), adding props, removing drool are all fine. Professional studios do use props and they do retouch portraits.
My interpretation of the rules just mean dont get silly or 'creative' with it, no cherubs or fairies kind of thing, just a straight studio portrait.

So why exactly is there a discussion forum?To discuss and hopefully to arrive at a conclusion.

I don't see any need to discuss this any more. Doug has clarified his position, others have agreed in varying extents....
You are a professional retoucher. Do what you think you should to please your client.
You are also the client (mom/dad). Judge your work, and the work of the others as such.
Can we put a lid on this now?

Rô

Yup.... but I apologize for opening the can of worms.

No more questions for me :)

Ro,

just a comment here. you mentioned that part of the solution is in defining the problem. so, i would submit that part of the problem is that we are not only the retouchers and restorers, but we ARE also the clients in that WE do the voting. so WE interpret the rules both as the client and the agent doing the work. and that in fact, there are as many clients as there are folks that enter. trying to please even ONE client can be a pain at times ;)

and to T_Paul, we would hate to lose you here. your contributions as a member and a moderator have always been appreciated if not always acknowledged. and in fact, that goes to all the moderators. we love this site. I love this site. and i would hate to think that anything said or done here or in any other forum led to a moderator resigning.

Craig

Ditto Craig and Ro.

TPaul, thank you for all of your time and work. I think you do a great job.

Cathy :pleased:

I'm going to throw this topic way off now. Muwahahaha! I can't help but think of two things everytime I see that fuzzy background. 1. The Muppet Show and 2. That new fuzzy material they have out now that you can buy socks and scarves in it. Does anyone know what I mean? It is the softest material I have ever felt and I think that if anyone here is a professional photographer and can get a large amount of that stuff, it would be the perfect material to photograph babies on. They would be so comfortable and enjoy feeling it. I know I couldn't get my 10 year old to stop feeling the socks in the store LOL. Still, everytime I see that background I hear "Munah Munah" from Animal the Muppet! :dizzy:

I like the fuzzy blanket. :cat:

Lorraine

I think its horrid - very late 70s early 80s. In fact I'm sure I've got baby pics of me on that stuff.
It reminds me a lot of a sheep skin rug we used to have.
Fake fur when this picture appears to have been taken was nowhere near as good as it is now. Back then it probably would have been the consistancy of sheep skin or some other coarse fiber, today you can get fake fur as soft as rabbit skin.
This picture looks like the kind of pictures you used to get taken in shopping centers, especially near christmas. The set up was basically a wooden box with a fake fur rug thrown over it - it was proper cheap and nasty.

Personally I prefer the nice plain sheet in Bobs.

I have a fake fur blanket that my boyfriend bought for me that we've named the 'snuggle'. I dont know abount babies but if someone sat me on that I'd want to curl up and go to sleep not pose for a photo ;)

I for one would hate to be in T Pauls shoes.
Come on guys give her a break.
I know people are trying to clarify rules to the letter, but it's not that sort of contest. It's fun and learning!
It must be so time consuming, even soul destroying, but maybe sometimes rewarding.
Let's just do what we always do, submit our entries and go for it!
If people like it, then they'll vote for it.
T.Paul - I think I speak for all members who have enjoyed your forums and contests, THANK YOU,
As the title in my post here reads, you are speaking for me Steve ! I still can remember when it was fun to participate and the comments were about how hard any part of the challenge was, not about the semantics of the rules. Can't we go back to that ? :surprise:

Regards - Martha :)

P.S. Ro your sample showing the hidden baby was soo funny ! :lmao: I enjoyed it very much, still can't see it but trust in your word (sort of :tongue: )

Wouldn't it be easier if we had some very well-defined keywords? That way T wouldn't have to spell it all out every month. So she could just say....
Restoration - yes;
Reconstruction - yes;
Retouch - yes;
Manipulation - no;
Art - no;
etc....and if anyone has any questions - just refer them to the "official RetouchPRO glossary".
Rô


I like that idea! I will incorporate in the next contest, but I bet there will still be questions ;)

I like that idea! I will incorporate in the next contest, but I bet there will still be questions ;)Of course there will! :devil: Q. What does retouch really mean??! (A. Whatever makes the picture look good I think....)

Ok, the rule-questioning door has been cracked open, so I have to let myself in. The rules state "...to restore the photo..." then further on "...use the various retouching/restoring/compositing skills...".

A strict definition of "restore" is to accurately and faithfully reconstruct the original photograph, the goal being to recreate the photo to it's original form as closely as possible. This means no vignetting, no altering of the background, no props, no color changes, etc. if not part of the original. Anything else constitutes a "retouch", "manipulation", or "substantive modification".

Are we looking for the best "restoration" (a la Fratelli Alinari), or the best "retouch/manipulation/restoration"?

- Kurt

This is a very good and fair question. This contest was intended to be a faithful reconstruction of the original photograph with the goal being to recreate the photo back to it's original form. That being said, personally I don't see any problem adding a vignette or performing minor retouching to salvage the photo, but I would try to keep as true to the original as possible.

Working long hours and a bit tired tonight, so I will have to tackle the rest of the questions tomorrow.

Night :)

This is a very good and fair question. This contest was intended to be a faithful reconstruction of the original photograph with the goal being to recreate the photo back to it's original form. That being said, personally I don't see any problem adding a vignette or performing minor retouching to salvage the photo, but I would try to keep as true to the original as possible.Ah - well there you go, that wasn't my interpretation! Seems just saying restore this picture, might have been simpler in that case.

Photoshop. I know we were supposed to 'put a lid on it', but T Paul having answered has put another spin on it for me. I guess I was expecting something more along Doug's line of - 'do what you think the mum/dad would like'. What the end goal is, rather than how it is to be acheived, seems easier to define.

I don't want people to be afraid to ask questions, but then I don't want people to get upset by the answers.....

All in all I think for the challenges the end goal was best described as....

You are a professional retoucher. Do what you think you should to please your client.

I try to give a simple description to get you in the right direction, but at the same time not limit your creativity. Some contests are geared towards manipulations, some towards art, some towards restoring and so on.

So that being said, approach each contest as you see fit, use your judgement. Ask questions (brace yourself for the answers), submit your entries (cross your fingers), and wait for the results. :D

I think we need to come to an understanding of what "definition" means. Do we want an explicit etymological deconstruction of the term, or rather shall we try to reach a concensus on the term as a contruct, an ad hoc agreement having no hold in any outside context?

(And, for the silly-impaired: this is a joke. Not a great joke, but I enjoyed it)

for myself, what is needed and wanted is to have the moderator or whoever is posting the current contest to take the role of the client. what specificially does the client want? and, if the client doesnt particularly wish to be very specific, then that's fine also, but it shld be specified. this takes the voting out of the role of everyone being the client when they vote. we then become 'quality control' rather than the client and are judging each other's entries based on the needs and wants of the client and the quality of the work done.

whenever i see the word 'restore' it has a specific meaning to me. take it back to its original state. period! if the original state was black and white, then make it black and white and dont colorize it. if it had props in it then restore the props. if it didnt, then no props shld be added. putting the qualifier in of something like 'to a studio quality image' only makes sense after 'restore' IF the original was 'studio quality'.

thus, when i vote on a restore, i vote based on the word 'restore'. if something extra has been added, no matter how well everything is done, then it hasnt met the criteria. if something is left out, then it's still the same thing. it's not truly restored to its original state.

you gotta remember here that we're artistic, fussy folks. we deal in megapixels pixel by pixel some of us. we deal in dust motes, and tiny scratches, and being zoomed in 10x while wearing reading glasses and sometimes using magnifying glasses on the monitor. so, it's no surprise to me that we tend to take the rules the same way.

see, in a restore, there is no 'creativity' per se. it's not a 'creative' challenge like a photo art or photo manipulation. it's more a technical thing. so, allowing 'creative leeway' in a restore is confusing somewhat. sure, some folks are going to miss something here or add something there in the technical performance of the restore, but adding props is 'creative leeway' and photo manipulation, not truly restoration. and i think that's where the confusion is coming in on this one. someone sees 'to studio quality' or ' that mom and pop would enjoy' and this immediately allows 'creative leeway' in the minds of the reader and somewhat conflicts with the definition of 'restore'. so, voting time comes around and joe likes the red balloon that's been added and votes for it, but sally says 'that's not a restore' and doesnt vote for it.

now, we all know what 'restore' means, but qualifiers were added, or at least some read these as qualifiers. i didnt. so, come time to vote and i would vote based on how i read the rules. so, i like the idea of having keywords. 'restore' would be one. if a qualifier were added like 'restore with creative leeway', that would mean something more lenient than a true, pure, restore.

basically, we simply want to know what does the client really want here. is creative interpretation desired, or does the client just want a simple, pure restore? that's all.

Craig

I'm guessing mum and dad wouldnt mind the removal of baby drool ;) Then again, I'm not a mum and not that way inclined at all, so I'm totally stabbing in the dark. Something I will think about when I'm done restoring heh.

I think T has made the rules crystal clear now, restore the photo back to its original state to the best of your ability, however the minor retouching that the studio might do, is allowed.

Customer: I'd like my steak medium rare
Waiter: Now, when you say medium rare, what do you mean?
Customer: I like it to be a pink on the inside
Waiter: But how pink do you want it to be? And how deep do you mean when you say "on the inside"?
Customer: I dunno, I like it definitely pink, but not bloody, and more towards the center than the edges
Waiter: So, definitely pink, and not light red? Or reddish brown? And can you give me an actual measurement of how far from the edge the pink needs to be?
Customer: I'm going to Denny's

One facet of professionalism is being able to intuit what the customer wants based on judgement and experience, in spite of any possible vagueness or mis-statements by the customer (quoting myself from an email exchange on this very subject).

I will admit to being puzzled as to why the contests get mired in pedantry, while the challenge rules get ignored wholesale.

Ording a steak is very different.
Chances are, you know your steak, you know what medium rare should be, the waiter doesnt care at all, he just tells the chef 1 steak medium rare. The chef being a qualified professional, knows what medium rare should be. You may have a personal preference to exactly how you like your steak cooked but since you're in a restaurant and instructions are delivered inpersonally via a mediator who likely couldnt give a rats ass if you enjoy your meal, you'll get that chefs version of medium rare, which means you'll get a steak, brown on the outside and somewhat pink in the middle, if your steak is cooked through or bleeding in the middle, you'd be perfectly entitled to send it back.
Maybe If you could talk to the chef directly and you were his only customer, you could get something closer to the 'medium rare' you prefer.
Also, rare, medium rare and well done are generally accepted descriptions for the cooking of your steak that are constant in pretty much any english speaking restaurant.
Well done - properly cooked like any other piece of meat
medium - brown on the outside but slightly pink in the middle - no blood
rare - its still mooing.

This is completely different, we get one shot at this - one entry per person. T cant send our entries back to the kitchen if we havent done what she wanted. And generally we're not using single phrase descriptors that have the same meaning accross the globe.
I do discuss with clients their requirements so I can get it right first time and not have to spend lots of going back to the drawing board or disappointing clients when they dont get what they wanted.
I was once of the client end of this process, I wanted a pciture of my grandma restored and colourised for a present for my grandpa, there was no interaction with the retoucher, he went ahead and what I got back was awful! He made my dear beloved grandma look like a hooker, I was outraged, but he couldnt see anything wrong with the picture he sent me, he couldnt understand why I was so upset. Now to me, if I got a request to colourise a picture I would do so to the best of my ability and as faithfully as I could not slap gallons of digital makeup on the subject, obviously he had a different idea of what colourise meant. If he had just asked, then we wouldnt have had the problem, and he would have got paid and I wouldnt have been angry.

Is it not time now to put the efforts into the contest !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The weathers very mild for this time of year.

I will admit to being puzzled as to why the contests get mired in pedantry, while the challenge rules get ignored wholesale.That doesn't seem completely fair Doug :( Who is doing that?

To be frank, I think that your explaination and TPaul's have actually been quite different, so it's hardly surprising this has generated more debate. Personally I didn't have any questions about the rules at all until others weighed in with the pure restoration arguement. It seemed to me mentions of compositing and retouching skills gave me some leaway, but clarification on this thread seem to have negated that. Fair enough - how about not being so down on people for being quite legitimately confused though? :cry:

Is it not time now to put the efforts into the contest !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The weathers very mild for this time of year.
dont know about in Solihul but in Bradford its Brass Monkeys weather! I'm working on mine little at a time, on big jobs like this I find it helps to not do it all in one sitting - details tend to be missed - will probably spend at least a week on this one. I want it to be perfect :)

I'm happy to act as the client to answer questions concerning the contest. I will be fairly open with my answers because I do not want to hamper creativity.

On that note, if I answer a question, please don’t say I’m changing the rules as I am just answering that person’s question. For example, just because I say black & white is fine...it doesn't mean all entries need to be black and white unless the rules state so.

The descriptions I give are more like guidelines to get you in the right frame of mind. I don’t mind you stretching your imaginations, but realize these contest are geared towards real world requests so try to approach them that way. You might like all the changes you made, but would a client like their photo altered drastically if they didn’t ask you to? Many might be upset if you changed the color of an object, because then it is not as they remembered it (backgrounds are usually the exception).

Now let’s get back to the contest and learn from each other’s work. I think so far in all the contests I have only contacted 2 members to change their work because they were not within the rules. Many others may not have been what I expected to see, but that’s when I usually just leave it up to the judges.

T, your reasoning and explanations are as sensible, unbiased and even-keeled as always - characteristics of a great moderator!

I would like to throw out a suggestion I hope will help.

We've had perfectly ligitimate questions, and yet members are getting hammered for asking. I don't understand why or how we got here, nonetheless there is an acute sensitivity by some to rule-questioning. I've rarely, if ever, felt the questions were inappropriate, nitpicky, unfriendly, or distracting from the fun and spirit of any of the contests. It's only the ensuing maelstrom I find distracting. Ok, that off my chest, some have proposed simplication...

As a possible solution, I suggest that the solicitation for questions regarding the rules be removed, and a statement added along the lines of "...make your best interpretation as a professional, given only the information provided here. Fire up your favorite graphics program, grab your mouse (or pen), and give it your best!". Maybe over simplified, but that's the gist.

While it's unlikely I'll ever be convinced that interpreting a customer's instruction is somehow more professional than asking for clarification, I do agree and appreciate that these contests are aimed towards professionals and should be conducted as such by all. If demonstrating a sense of accurate interpretation is a facet we're looking for, in all fairness let's clearly make it be known so others in the future don't feel alienated, or like they've offended, if they pose a rule related question.

- Kurt

Hi Kurt,

If I ranted a bit in my earlier post, it wasn't with reference to any particular question (which may or may not have been valid), it's just that every month we get this pedantic need for clarification of rules that are usually pretty clear and succinct.

As I said earlier, my belief is that these contests were held in a spirit of fun, therefore it's surely not too important that you get the interpretation right to the letter, rather that you comply with the spirit of the contest, and produce a piece of work to be enjoyed and learnt from by others.

If it is way off what others consider to be the right interpretation, then it won't get voted for, no real loss, it's not like this competition is a matter of life or death, it's just for fun.

Anyway, as usual, I look forward to seeing everyone's entry, no matter how close or far it is from the perceived norm.

Gary

I agree with you Gary. The problem as I see it though is that now it seems any rule related question is getting characterized as "pedantic", "nitpicky" or as some attempt to "clarify to the letter". I just don't think that's the case, and feel they are helpful. I'll use my question as an example: the essence was "...can we add and change stuff, or should we keep it true to the original?". A simple answer, like "keep it true as possible" was all that was needed.

kurt - agree 100% If questions can't be accepted with equamity by all, lets have a statement saying not to ask any. To me the fun is actually being spoilt by the criticism being received to those questions, not the people posing them. Funny that we seem to have the opposite problem to that in the 'classified section' :dizzy:

Hi Kurt, yes the simple answer seems good to me.

Perhaps it would help to have a set of core definitions to what is meant by, Restore, Retouch etc. that people can refer to when clarification is needed.

Then T could say this months competition is a Retouch, or a Restore, or whatever, and everyone would be in no doubt as to what was needed.

Just a thought.

Gary.

Hi, have to drop my first post sometimes.
My opinion about any contest is, that there can be no contest without rules.

Or try to decide who's the best of Shaquille O'Neal and Maurice Greene in a contest without rules. :question:

*/Lazze

I have a question: the file opens (for me) in QuickTime player with no option to "save target as."

I tried it in IE and firefox. Is my computer deciphering this properly?

Maureen :hairbow:

I have a question: the file opens (for me) in QuickTime player with no option to "save target as."

I tried it in IE and firefox. Is my computer deciphering this properly?

Maureen :hairbow:
Quicktime associates TIFF files to itself. To get around this, you can install a shareware program called "Internetiff", which can be found here:

http://www.internetiff.com/docs/try.htm

It wrestles the TIFF association away from Quicktime, so you can right-click Save As with no problem.

More information on this issue can be found here:

http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/gis/webdev/tiffquicktime.htm

- Kurt

I have a question: the file opens (for me) in QuickTime player with no option to "save target as."

I tried it in IE and firefox. Is my computer deciphering this properly?

Maureen :hairbow:

Right click on the photo link in the contest thread instead of clicking on the link to open it. That should give you the "Save as taget" option. :)

T, unfortunately this problem with the Quicktime install prevents even the right-click Save As... option from working. The only options I know of are to uninstall QT, or install another program that resets the affected registry entries. Not everyone with QT will have this problem....for instance if they have installed a program that associates the TIFF entries sometime after installing QT.

The following might work - I haven't been able to fully test it yet, since I've already changed the association on my system:

Note that some versions of QuickTime are slightly different. Very old versions (before 4.1) are very different, and you might consider upgrading or uninstalling.

1) From the Start menu, select "Control Panel".
2) [Windows XP] If it says "Pick a category", click "Switch to Classic View" at the upper-left.
3) Double-click the "QuickTime" icon.
4) Click the "Browser" tab, or from the drop-down list, select "Browser Plug-in". Click the "MIME Settings" button.
5) Double-click the "Images ..." item to expand it.
6) If the "TIFF ..." or "image/tiff" item is checked, uncheck it.
7) Press the "OK" button, and close the "QuickTime Settings" window by clicking the X in the upper-right corner.

Would it be helpful to have any of this moved to another thread, like Help or Software?

- Kurt

I'd like to keep it here for now since it is relative to the contest. I may duplicate it in the help section later. Thanks for the tips!

~T

Here is another option I found through a Google search:

Viewing TIFF images:
If you have problems viewing TIFF images, you probably don't have the right viewer associated with that file extension. To correct that:
1. Save the TIFF image to your Desktop or anywhere else on your hard drive.
2. Right-click the TIFF file you just saved and go to Properties.
3. In the window that will open, under "Opens with:" click on Change.
4. In the new window under "Recommended Programs:" select either "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" or "Microsoft Office Document Imaging" (if you have Microsoft Office) and click OK twice. Those 2 applications will allow you to view the TIFF images.

Perhaps it would help to have a set of core definitions to what is meant by, Restore, Retouch etc. that people can refer to when clarification is needed........That's exactly what I'm working on! :rambo:

Thanks to my constant nagging about definitions and promotion of occasional nitpikfests, I have been graciously "awarded" :eek: the position of Moderator for the "Glossary" forum. (Did you know that RetouchPRO has a glossary forum?)

I haven't posted anything there yet, still thinking :confused: of how best to go about it. Come lunchtime, I'll post a "sticky" there with some ideas.

Rô

The Photo that I submitted was scanned as a Tiff file. The artifacts where in the paper itself. The original photo was a 5 x 7 and scanned with no attempts to improve it.

I noticed Lorraine's excellent post today and it brings up a question of whether the skin of a baby should have a slightly redder tint than the one she posted. Just sort of wondering.

The Photo that I submitted was scanned as a Tiff file. The artifacts where in the paper itself. The original photo was a 5 x 7 and scanned with no attempts to improve it.

I noticed Lorraine's excellent post today and it brings up a question of whether the skin of a baby should have a slightly redder tint than the one she posted. Just sort of wondering.

Just a comment, all my children at 3 months or younger were quite a pinkish tone with rather thin looking skin. If I'd have observed any one of mine looking a little tanned, I'd have had them to the doctor's straight away for a billirubin count, lol. On the other end of the scale, if one of my child turned bluish (which one did), I'd be concerned about oxygen concentration and sats given it indicated cyanosis, lol, but then I am a mother of 6 kids so a worry wart by nature :)

Phil, do you know if this is a baby boy :rambo: or baby girl :hairbow:? I've assumed girl due to the frilly jumper, but I can never tell for sure.

- Kurt

kshultz, the blanket on the edges is clearly a pink blanket

That's exactly what I'm working on! :rambo:

I haven't posted anything there yet, still thinking :confused: of how best to go about it. Come lunchtime, I'll post a "sticky" there with some ideas.

Rô, thanks for "volunteering"! Looking forward to it. I'm willing to help out any way I can...

- Kurt

Cass, you're a mind reader :wink:

byRo

Thanks to my constant nagging about definitions and promotion of occasional nitpikfests, I have been graciously "awarded" the position of Moderator for the "Glossary" forum. (Did you know that RetouchPRO has a glossary forum?)

I didn't, but I do now, great idea. If anyone can pin things down, it's you. Good luck with the new task, and don't stand for any criticism of your definitions. One standard for all.

Thanks for the extra time and effort I know it must take.

Gary

I didn't, but I do now, great idea. If anyone can pin things down, it's you. Good luck with the new task, and don't stand for any criticism of your definitions. One standard for all.

Thanks for the extra time and effort I know it must take.

Gary
yes only best wishes here, didn't realise the comps could be such a hotbed of politicism till now, lol

That baby is a girl. She's my daughter and got married a couple of weeks ago.

Cloning, retouching, some patching from left arm, color balance, addition of color layer over background.

rolffimages, welcome to RetouchPRO. :bigthmb:

That's a nice rendition. In fact, the only thing wrong is that it's in the wrong thread.

Please post it in the Contest Thread (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11984), OK? :thumbsup:

Rô

[QUOTE.....I noticed Lorraine's excellent post today and it brings up a question of whether the skin of a baby should have a slightly redder tint than the one she posted. Just sort of wondering.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the comment/tip, Phil. I've been struggling all along with your daughter's skin color. I had her anywhere from too orange--to too blue--to too red, but nothing looked very natural. Guess I'll keep working it.

By the way, I thought you get a kick out of this -- I was working on the photo while an appliance serviceman was here the other day. He saw the photo on the screen and said "Oh, what a beautiful baby!!! Who is she?" And beautiful she is. It was a great pleasure to work on this photo.

Lorraine

Ro--

Congratulations on your new position :)

Lorraine

I am a newbe to the thread posting thing. It may take me a few tries to get it right. :blush:

I noticed that it was possible to upload a modified version of the image.
How ?
*/ Lazze_gurra

I noticed that it was possible to upload a modified version of the image.
How ?
*/ Lazze_gurra


Now that's one thing that I'm getting good at :)

Go to your post, click Edit. In the edit screen, scroll down to "Manage Attachments." Click on Manage Attachments, and a pop-up window opens. Remove the current attachment, and then upload your new version.

Lorraine

That's exactly what I'm working on! :rambo:

Thanks to my constant nagging about definitions and promotion of occasional nitpikfests, I have been graciously "awarded" :eek: the position of Moderator for the "Glossary" forum. (Did you know that RetouchPRO has a glossary forum?)

I haven't posted anything there yet, still thinking :confused: of how best to go about it. Come lunchtime, I'll post a "sticky" there with some ideas.

Rô
Here is a quick attempt...

retouch
1.To add new details or touches to for correction or improvement (i.e. color and tone correction).
2.To improve or change (a photographic negative or print), as by adding minor details (i.e. highlights in eyes) or removing flaws (i.e. blemishes, cracks, tears).

restore 1.To bring back to an original condition: restore a photo.

manipulation
1.changing the look of a photo by adding or deleting elements to it, and/or altering existing elements (i.e. shrinking a nose, removing a person)

photo art –
1. Changing the appearance of a photo to look like it was created in an art medium such as oil, watercolor, pencil, charcoal, crayon and so on.

I'm guessing that your daughter's hair is (or at least, was) aubern when she was a little tacker. Is that correct or is it just a result of the colour cast? And what colour are her eyes?

To everyone else,
This is why I joined. The quality of so many of the entries is outstanding. I'm really interested in how anyone working on a mac platform has dealt with the paper texture. I downloaded the fft filter but can't seem to get it to work properly. It's doing my head in, I'm normally pretty good with techo things... really! . Anywy, your help would be greatly appreciated.

Go to your post, click Edit. In the edit screen, scroll down to "Manage Attachments." Click on Manage Attachments, and a pop-up window opens. Remove the current attachment, and then upload your new version.

Seems to work just fine.
A leg improvement coming up shortly.
Thanks Lorraine

Obviously I have to put in the "Originally Posted by" in quotes by myself. :!:

... I downloaded the fft filter but can't seem to get it to work properly. It's doing my head in, I'm normally pretty good with techo things... really! . Anywy, your help would be greatly appreciated.
Peth, have you tried Rô's excellent tutorial on the FFT filter?

http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=185

- Kurt

Make sure you get the RGB version. Also when you run the reverse make sure you have only 1 layer in your image (keep a backup of the original elsewhere) and make sure you have the RGB chanel selected when you run the IFFT - I had problems but thats how I got it to work.
Also, rather than dark splotches as ByRo suggests I found I got better results by sampling from near by the light specks and painting over with that colour - I have no diea how the FFT and IFFT stuff works - I looked up the maths but it was way beyond my understanding, but I speculate that if you had the patients to treat the FFT like a restore and clone and heal out the stars rather than splotching over them you could get some amazing results.... thats just a theory though.

Here is a quick attempt...

retouch
1.To add new details or touches to for correction or improvement (i.e. color and tone correction).
2.To improve or change (a photographic negative or print), as by adding minor details (i.e. highlights in eyes) or removing flaws (i.e. blemishes, cracks, tears).

restore 1.To bring back to an original condition: restore a photo.

manipulation
1.changing the look of a photo by adding or deleting elements to it, and/or altering existing elements (i.e. shrinking a nose, removing a person)

photo art –
1. Changing the appearance of a photo to look like it was created in an art medium such as oil, watercolor, pencil, charcoal, crayon and so on.

I swore I'd keep out of this for now... :dizzy: but as the original instructions specified: use the various retouching/restoring/compositing skills we try to promote here I guess the retouch AND restore definitions come into play for this one. Not sure about 'compositing'.... (A form of manipulation, yes?)

caitlin,

i wrote up some definitions in this thread: http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12029 i havent checked the retouchpro glossary lately though. i make no claim that my definitions are necessarily correct. we've had this discussion before on RP about differences in these things and not everyone agrees on them. and that's part of the difficulty... agreement.

and yes, i would say that composites fall into the category of manipulation.

i think t_paul and doug are relaxing the strict definitions of 'restore' here, or if not relaxing, then at least allowing a bit of coloring outside the lines. for instance, Ray12's entry has completely changed the background and cited the qualifiers about 'studio' that were put in the contest rules. to me, that makes his entry completely valid per those qualifiers, whereas it's not a straight 'restoration'. so, i've relaxed my criteria for voting on this one. the one with the added rubber ducky and so on, well, that's really pushing it... to me, anyways. now you're into photo-manip and really getting further away from 'restoration', particularly if the manip was used to cover areas that needed restoring. so, i dont know about that one. but, being that we're here to also have fun, i suppose i'll probably not prejudice my vote too much :)

Craig

Personally, I didnt have a problem with the duck composite originally because the rules said to use retouching, restoring and compositing. However T Paul's clarification meant to me that the goal was to restore to look like the original studio shot rather than just a studio shot.

I'm still working on mine but I'm using all my most advanced techniques to restore the original, rather than desat and recolour ;) Not that I'm saying theres anything wrong with that, just as a personal challenge I want to do it that way. I probably work harder on these competitions than on paying work, partially because the scrutiny of peers is much greater than most clients but mostly because they're a challenge and I like to push myself.

Little disappointing to see the rules thing is still going on :sad:
Anyway I will join in the spirit of this contest, although I will not enter.
Below is a quick example done in around 25 mins, and a quick explanation of what was done ;)
Layer 1
1/ duplicated image and removed background to create layer 1
2/ Ran it through neat image to remove some of the pattern.
3/ ran Auto colour adjustment, then increased saturation a little
4/ Used replace colour tool to improve colours in clothing
5/ copied leg from other side and rotated to fit missing leg.
6/ Spot healing brush to clean up skin areas where marks were

Base/background layer
1/ deleted green and blue channels and converted back to rgb
2/ Used clone to fix missing areas and marks
3/ Ran through neat image
4/ added a yellow/green filter

Now I used levels adjustments on each layer to try and make baby and background match.
Cropped edges and resized to post. ;)

Hope this gives a few pointers on methods etc :bigthmb: and brings back the real spirit of these contests (Fun and sharing) :nod:

...I dont see the point in doing it but not entering just because the rules get discussed. If you dont like the discussions, just dont read them.

Point being, this discussion is supposed to be about the image and how to go about fixing it. There is little or no discussion about how to go about fixing the image, so I added some. I did exactly the same thing Here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10473&page=3&pp=15) and people found it helpful
This is also a great place to share your techniques or ask others about theirs.
So I'm sharing and I'm happy to do so without being a contestant, because I do it for fun not the prize :nod:

Chris, please get off your high horse - as Nancy has said if you don't like the discussion, don't read it. Pot, Kettle, Black comes to mind - you know what I mean I think.

Chris, please get off your high horse.

I will not lower myself to reply to that here.

Pot, Kettle, Black comes to mind - you know what I mean I think
As above, but please do explain your comment to myself and other members.

As above, but please do explain your comment to myself and other members.

I think what Caitlin is trying to say is that your trying to prove a point by participating but not entering 'on principle' is just as unpleasant and destructive to the friendly nature of the competition as any discussion over the rules.

I've reread this thread a few times over the last couple of weeks and the only unpleasantness and unfriendly behaviour comes from people like you who regard any friendly discussion and sharing of opinions on our interpretations of the rules as 'nitpicking' and in your opinion spoiling your fun. An opinion you are entitled to but we dont all have to share it.

These competitions are not compulsory. If you dont find them fun then you dont have to participate. You obviously enjoy the challenge and want to share your work with others but you refuse to compete because it isnt fun. Well as I said, you can compete without reading this thread.
If you want to share your technique then I'm sure everyone would be glad to see another tutorial, if you want critique then we have a forum for that too.
Posting here but refusing to compete comes accross as spiteful and arrogant, your further posts reinforce that.

The only unpleasantness here is coming from people complaining about the unpleasantness. Everyone else is happily discussing and sharing their opinions and perceptions of certain terms, which while not directly related to the contest is a natural progression of the conversation.

thanks chrishoggy,
i was wondering how to get rid of this bluish colour from skin... and now i have my answer :D
i will not try with this challenge, cause it's not exactly what i i'm good at, but i'm following your work here :)
hope i'll learn here something more than how to fight :P
have fun!

only unpleasantness and unfriendly behavior comes from people like you
Where have I been unpleasant and unfriendly?
And what/who are people like me?

Sorry Nancy, but I would like Caitlin to explain her comments herself. I am on the receiving end of insulting comments, so I would like them explained, PLEASE.

As for if I don't like the discussion, don't read it. If people don't like the rules, why read them?
Am I the only person to comment on nitpicking the rules? NO

thanks chrishoggy,
i was wondering how to get rid of this bluish colour from skin... and now i have my answer :D
i will not try with this challenge, cause it's not exactly what i i'm good at, but i'm following your work here :)
hope i'll learn here something more than how to fight :P
have fun!

I rest my case :cool: Thankyou thana

Where have I been unpleasantness and unfriendly?
And what/who are people like me?
People like you are people who feel the way that you do in that they wont participate in the competitions purely because some contestants wish to discuss the 'rules'.
The unpleasantness comes from the accusations of 'nitpicking' on legitamate queries about focus of the contests and your posting of your 'entry' in this thread rather than the contest thread comes accross as 'protest' post, coupled with your comments implying what we should and shouldnt be allowed to discuss in the discussion thread and your comments to Caitlin, and there you've got your unfriendlyness too.

As for if I don't like the discussion, don't read it. If people don't like the rules, why read them?
Firstly, no-one has ever said that they dont like the rules, all anyone has done is seek to understand them better so that we're all on the same page when it comes to submitting our entries and voting for a winner. Secondly we read the rules because, unlike you, we actually wish to compete, whether its for prize, the prestige, the comments or just so we can vote.

Just because you dont like rules doesnt mean that everyone feels that way. In fact I think its probably a 50/50 split on the 'follow the rules' vs 'freestyle' crowds, people who want to follow the rules (and therefore may need clarification on certain points) have just as much right to enjoy the contests as those who dont.
For people who dont care about the rules or winning the competition and just want to have fun well you can do that, theres nothing stopping you doing whatever you like with the image in your own home and there are plenty of other forums to discuss techniques and ask for critiques, if thats what you want.

Am I the only person to comment on nitpicking the rules? NO

No-one said you were. You are the only person to post your 'entry' without entering though.

You are the only person to post your 'entry' without entering though.
It's not an entry, it's an example and explanation of a method. thanas post proves that what I did was of use, and the same happened in the other contest I did a little example on.

I didn't make the accusation of nitpicking, Doug did. I just picked up on his comment, as did many others.
This monthly nitpickfest is going to cost us all a great moderator. And if T quits, no more contests (because she's far more patient than I am).

After my comment I stated that I wouldn't enter because of the arguments over rules. Nothing unpleasant about that! I made this statement again in my example post, so nobody asked for my image to be put in the contest.
This seems more like people can't understand why I would help others to win a contest. Or that they are taking my help as a way of proving a point. I have no point to prove, I said what I needed to say, and I am now going to help others in trying to win. If people take that the wrong way, I can do nothing about that.
As for comments to Caitlin, I am quite within my rights to ask why she made a personal insult. SIMPLE AS THAT
I will not stop helping others with contest entries, as thats what this forum is all about.
I again draw peoples attention to comments passed Here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10473&page=3&pp=15) , after id gave an example :cool:

Can we all PLEASE stop this here. Please? The ONLY reason I asked a question at the beginning is because I didn't read thorough enough before posting it AND because it's the first time I had entered a contest AND never realized that there had been an issue with asking questions before. Still, I hate to see this blown way out of hand. I'm not siding with anyone because I don't see the need to. I just want all this to stop. Not the contests, not helping people, just the bickering over basically... nothing. I have already tried to put a lighter spin and move away from this and even posted my little can of worms for a chuckle. I tried not to post in this topic again but it just keeps going on and on and I'm afraid we won't have these contests anymore if it causes all this controversy and I don't want that to happen. Let's just all stop here and have fun with the contest and let what said be said and leave it alone. Please?

Don't worry twinkissed, you're not responsible. From what I can tell this type of banter has been going on for a while.

A friendly word of caution to everyone in this forum and others for that matter. I work in an ad agency with hundreds of colleagues and clients sending emails back and forth every minute of the day. I guess some of you are used to the same thing.

Anyway, quite often an email will circulate and people will comment on the nature of it negatively, simply because they misread the tone of the email... not the content mind, just the tone in which it was written.

Next time someone posts a message, imagine them to be cheerful smiling individuals, rather than looking like they just sucked on a lemon. You still don't have to agree with them but it will affect how you respond.

I say this as someone who has repeatedly made this mistake in the past, so it's as much a reminder to myself as it is, advice to you all.

Now, as silly as this may sound I'd like to start a big virtual hug for everyone... please feel free to join in. It goes like this 00000000000000... there now, I feel better anyway!

twinkissed, I had no problem with your question or the duck etc in your image. PLEASE don't think this was anything to do with what you said :blush: .
Anyway, quite often an email will circulate and people will comment on the nature of it negatively, simply because they misread the tone of the email... not the content mind, just the tone in which it was written.

Next time someone posts a message, imagine them to be cheerful smiling individuals, rather than looking like they just sucked on a lemon. You still don't have to agree with them but it will affect how you respond.

Thank God a common sense statement has come to this thread. :bow: :bow:

Hi Twinkissed,

Just to add that I don't think anyone would think you started this. As Peth so rightly says, this is a thing that crops up most months to a lesser or greater extent. Probably comes from the competitive nature of some members, and wanting to have the last say from others.

Chris, nice job, pity its not an entry. One minor "fault", there appear to be a few clone marks on the baby's left leg (as we look at it). To me, posting your method is well in keeping with the aims of this site, which is to share our knowledge of photo "manipulation" with other members.

In parting, would just like to say I've enjoyed looking at everyone's entry, and would like to wish everyone luck. I'd also like to see a detailed breakdown of the eventual winner's method, so we can all learn.

Gary

Hi Gary,
yep there are quite a few clone marks, bad blending etc and things that need doing to it. I didn't want to do a finished image to show as such, just a quick example as a guide to a method :bigthmb:
Would be nice for as many people as possible to post their methods, not just the winners, as people may wish to know how a member achieved a certain result in their image :classic:

Well I just cant decide. When I started out I wanted to due a purely faithful reconstruction of the original image... but as I've been working on removing the discolouration I'm finding that I'm not happy with the blanket colour. So I checked the original and the highlights of the baby's skin and the highlight of the blanket have almost identical CYMK values.
So now I'm torn, if I'm being faithful to the original (or at least what I believe to be the original) I'm putting a pink baby on a pink blanket, giving the whole image a very magenta look, if I change the background colour then I'm deviating from the original and thats not what I wanted to do....

help me decide :bawling:

I've attached a couple of images to show what I'm talking about.... they're by no means finished - I just like to give myself little previews of what the finished article will look like ;) - keeps me motivated, I've been working on this for nearly 10 hours and I'm not done yet... need a little pick me up.

IMHO quite a bit of the pink colouring has come from discolouration of the original. If you look down the right hand side and top of the image, there is an even greater pink discolouration in a stripe running full length of the image. I would go with the second option and make the background a creamy colour :bigthmb: I would suspect this would be close to the original colours in the image???

Hi everyone.

If you look just under babies left arm (Our Right) there is an area where the dress is grey. You can see this in Nancy’s post above.
IMHO this picture has been coloured in.
So should we make the dress green or grey?


Ken

See here we have a difference of opinion, IMO, the discoulouration is everything except the strip that you feel is the discolouration heh.
I've attached a couple of images again. I ran a curves adjustment on the original, selecting the rattle as the white and the darkest shadow under the babys bottom as the black.
The first image is the lightness and b channels, this is why I think that the discolouration is yellow/green rather than pink. The second image is the l&a channel. The third is l&a&b together just for reference.

I agree that a more neutral background looks better but I disagree that its the original colour.... I could be wrong, I guess we wont know unless Phil remembers what colour is was ;)

Hi everyone.

If you look just under babies left arm (Our Right) there is an area where the dress is grey. You can see this in Nancy’s post above.
IMHO this picture has been coloured in.
So should we make the dress green or grey?


Ken
looks more of a bluey grey to me - IMO the dress was probably blue, cant be sure though, but I do think the green is the discolouration but its misleading because it covers so much of the outfit

As there were different areas of different levels of discolouration. I used the damaged area and dark shadow as black. Then for whites I assumed the original was printed on white paper, so selected the edge of photo, rattle head and two areas of rattle the handle.
This gives the result attached.

As there were different areas of different levels of discolouration. I used the damaged area and dark shadow as black. Then for whites I assumed the original was printed on white paper, so selected the edge of photo, rattle head and two areas of rattle the handle.
This gives the result attached.
If you look at the L&B channels you can see the same yellow discolouration - although less pronounced, you can see that its splotchy and uneven in the yellow range which is why I believe that to be the discolouration. Just MHO though.

Also if you take some colour samples, everything is very strong in the yellow - the highlight of the baby's cheek is CMY 1% 0% 15% - the strip at the top is almost the exact same values while a highlight of the rest of the blanket is 1% 0% 32% - even stronger yellow.

To me it looks like the picture spent some time in a frame on display so the strip around the edge would be the preserved part.
I acknoledge that my initial curves are too strong on the magenta, but they still make the skin tone the same colour as the blanket, that is, if I'm right about the strip around the edge being the right colours - or at least closer.

If you look at the L&B channels you can see the same yellow discolouration - although less pronounced, you can see that its splotchy and uneven in the yellow range which is why I believe that to be the discolouration. Just MHO though.

Also if you take some colour samples, everything is very strong in the yellow - the highlight of the baby's cheek is CMY 1% 0% 15% - the strip at the top is almost the exact same values while a highlight of the rest of the blanket is 1% 0% 32% - even stronger yellow.

To me it looks like the picture spent some time in a frame on display so the strip around the edge would be the preserved part.
I acknoledge that my initial curves are too strong on the magenta, but they still make the skin tone the same colour as the blanket, that is, if I'm right about the strip around the edge being the right colours - or at least closer.

Just looking at this pic, I expect it spent some time in a frame of some sort, if only a cardboard cut out frame. Based on the edge information and using that as white for reference I agree that the blanket and the baby's tones, when adjusted are both very magenta. Not so soothing for the eyes as the paler alternatives, but probably more true to the original. Even I, due to aesthetics have changed the hue.

We will never really know the true colours unless Phil remembers them. Reason I am in doubt about the frame keeping original colours, is this frame like mark is only on 2 sides. That lead me to think it may have been due to a photo/object sitting on top of the image, thus leaving the two outer edges more exposed to the elements ;)

We will never really know the true colours unless Phil remembers them. Reason I am in doubt about the frame keeping original colours, is this frame like mark is only on 2 sides. That lead me to think it may have been due to a photo/object sitting on top of the image, thus leaving the two outer edges more exposed to the elements ;)

rofl, Chris, ever seen what a kerosene heater does to images/paper over time, lol. Fairly short time that is

Just looking at this pic, I expect it spent some time in a frame of some sort, if only a cardboard cut out frame. Based on the edge information and using that as white for reference I agree that the blanket and the baby's tones, when adjusted are both very magenta. Not so soothing for the eyes as the paler alternatives, but probably more true to the original. Even I, due to aesthetics have changed the hue.
I really think you're on the right track with this (NancyJ and Cassidy). We've all seen many photos about this age that were displayed for years in a picture frame, or with the edges behind a mat. Yellowing of the uncovered area is a very common problem, and the covered edges, being protected from the light, are a much closer to the original color. Without any further information, this is why I went with pink for the blanket - and the fact that the baby is a girl helped support that decision.

Other factors will degrade the original photo colors as well, and therefore we can't really use the edge colors alone to dictate the colors for the rest of the photo (which I believe is why the baby then turns magenta). I used the edges as a start, then handled the subject area separately using Katrin Eismann's suggestions on skin color for babies.

- Kurt

must have missed that chapter

2nd Ed., pg 114 - 115.

amazing, I have shopping centre photos of my kids vs. professional photos, unreal the difference, the photo centre photos have lost their glean, colour far more greatly over time than the professional ones taken, even school photos have better integrity than shopping centre photos

Hi everyone.

Well I finally got something I’m happy with and posted it.
I really struggled with this. Babies are meant to have no cyan in the skin, but there was a lot in the picture.
I finished up working backwards with this. First I corrected the skin then worked from there.

Ken

nancy,

So now I'm torn, if I'm being faithful to the original (or at least what I believe to be the original) I'm putting a pink baby on a pink blanket, giving the whole image a very magenta look, if I change the background colour then I'm deviating from the original and thats not what I wanted to do.... you certainly arent alone in this. i ran into the same problem and have several versions of different colors in both the blanket/backdrop and the baby's clothing.

Craig

After following closely the various approaches to get the true colours the image had or might have, I realized --once more-- how little I now about this Art of Restoration and Retouching. How much I still have to learn about PhotoShop.

So within my own limitations I managed to get some satisfying result, from my point of view. My restoration was more intuitive than technical, first worked on the image just as we received it. Removed the yellow blotches, the dark "tie looking" bar or shadow, the artifacts, scratches etc.

"Cloned" the baby's left foot and placed it in her right leg. Then separated the various elements into what I called the skin, the dress, the rattle and the blanket. And did my best to find out which could be the original colours.

The skin I knew could not be yellow-green as it looked, so I worked with the various options of Brightness, hue, colour etc. The hardest part were the eyes, they are not clearly defined and restoring them to what I could distinguish gave me a "cross eyed" result. This is common in newly born babies due to their inability of focusing, but one eye looked markedly larger than the other, so I took as a reference what I could see of the left eye (baby's left) and adapted the size of the right side one to that.

Well I guess the above are the outstanding stages of my restoration, retouching. Since it is not technical or professional I don't think there is need for more detail.

Good luck to all and congratulations on the professionalism of the participants.

Regards - Martha :wavey:

Observations from a complete novice --

The discussion among you pros regarding the color correction portion of this contest is excellent. I've learned more about restoration/retouching from your discussions than I ever knew existed. Of course, now I'm more confused than ever as to what the correct colors are or should be :ditsy:

I've done a couple of versions in different shades, but could not pull any blue out of the baby's dress at all without painting in it in.

I'm tending to believe that the original had more beige in the blanket but less yellow (more red/magenta) in the baby's skin and still have no idea what the dress color really was.

Anyway, I justed wanted to say thanks to all of you who have contributed so constructively to this part of the contest.

Lorraine

Hi Lorraine

If you are having trouble with the colour cast try reading Doug’s two posts in this thread.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10753&highlight=pixel

I think this gets the picture pretty close.

The trouble is that, as Nancy stated, the skin and the fur are very similar in colour.

I never expected the fur to be pink (I still don’t think it should be). 15 years ago I was taking picture just like this. I had a piece of fur which was off white/fawn

I made the decision to get the skin right and not bother too much about the rest

Another reference point is the picture border, which should be white. But again this is difficult as we can’t really decide which part of the border has faded the most.

Chris used the missing area as a black point. This is logical, but again cannot be relied upon.

So it’s all a guess here.

Hope this helps.

Ken

Well I came from the point of view that logically a border is usually white, so that was my reference point

Ken --

Thanks so much for taking more of your time to help me. That link is very important to my learning process. I did know about picking a random color, filling a color-blend layer with it, and inverting the layer for correction, but I didn't know about using the entire photo in the blurred state.

I've been working (or in my case playing :) ) with that technique.

Lorraine

You’re welcome.
Doug has a tutorial, but in that tutorial you need to find a neutral. Using Blur Average (or reduce to one pixel) means you do not need to find a neutral. (Very handy).

Another Spanner for the Works.

The other Unknown here is Babies Nationality.
Is She European, Latin, etc.

The photo belongs to Phil Bach from Seabrook Island, SC.
But this gives no indication to the babies Nationality.
Changing her skin from European to Latin changes the background from pink to blue.

More Problems. :dizzy:


Ken

I have used two different methods to color correct this one. When I made my entry I made it simple and just used the toy as white and the darkest shadow on the baby as black. Then I changed the grey point on the channels to try to achieve a somewhat natural look.

Then I experimented with another approach assuming the light spots of the dress should be neutral.
I took 4 different spots on the dress ranging from 53 to 186 on the green channel. Then I adjusted the blue and red to the same values with curves. Also adjusted the white and black point on the curves. Not trying to tweek the result but just straighten the curves.

Interestingly the result of both approaches yields the same result. A baby with a green dress lying on a beige/creem blanket. I attach the result of the second approach. No other corrections are made on this one.

/Mats

Interestingly the result of both approaches yields the same result. A baby with a green dress lying on a beige/creem blanket. I attach the result of the second approach. No other corrections are made on this one.

/Mats
Only if the discolouration is the strip around edge - cause by an object being placed over the image protecting everything except that strip. If, as I believe, the picture was in a frame for some time and the majority of the image is sun damaged with that strip around the edge being the protected part then the image is a baby in a blue/grey dress on a pink blanket.... its all depends which part is the real colour.
I've already stated that I believe the yellow to be the discolouration because 1) to me it seems logical that photo would have been in a frame on display
2) because the yellow in the b channel and to a lesser extent the green in the a channel is splotchy and uneven, suggesting to me that it shouldnt be there.

Ken, Smats, Cassidy and Nancy --

I'm still reading all of your posts great interest, and trying out the various techniques you're discussing. Since I know so little about professional color correction, I don't think it's my place to add more comments. I feel I'll just confuse the issue even more.

I give you all so much credit for even being in this business because the more I'm learning, the harder it's becoming. :classic:

Lorraine

In Smats picture above (Which is exactly what I got) the white border at the right reads
C 24, M 4, Y 12, B 0 The border at the left reads C 24, M 5, Y 14, B 0
So the highlights have too much cyan

The shadow between her hands reads C 71, M 64, Y 61, B 59 and the shadow between her legs reads C 74, M 68, Y 61, B 68
So the shadows have too much cyan

Babies skin below her right eye reads C 43, M 48, Y 43, B 6
Babies skin on her left knee reads C 42, M 45, Y 41, B 4
So this skin has way too much cyan.and black

I added a curves layer to Smats picture, Made the border and shadow equal.
And removed a little cyan from the midtones (skin and fur) Just enough to get to believable levels.

These figures are just about possible but a light skinned baby should have a skin tone of
C 0, M 15, Y 15, B 0.

Ken

It's gr8 to see just how many different approaches there is to this one with the colour correction. I must admit that after trying them all, I am now undecided as to what one is right. All seem to give good results but in different ways, and giving slightly different background colours. Will be nice to see how many entries have the pink or cream background :bigthmb: .

Can someone go poke Phil? Only he can put us out of our misery ;) heh

:lol: It's to be hoped he can remember, otherwise this could go on for years :lol: Just shows how people see the same image in such different ways though :happy:

:lol: It's to be hoped he can remember, otherwise this could go on for years :lol: Just shows how people see the same image in such different ways though :happy:
Even if he cant remember the colours, hepefully he will be able to tell us a bit about the history - ie frame vs item on top of theories :)

Earth to Phil, earth to Phil, know as a guy you probably don't really remember (not a shot), but do recall that pinks in the late 70's early 80's were really the go, so fashionable, not aesthetic though, but heck, it was fashionable... looking at photo of eldest now, it was pink on pink on pink, looked really magenta to me, but given the passage of time, looks ok or at least, so so today.

Can imagine at the moment you feel like cringing, so was your retouch based on recall or aesthetics :)

Bet by this stage you would have preferred to be anonymous, lol

in a perfect shot a baby's skin may be as ken says. however, there are few perfect shots. lighting can always change the appearance of skin color... or other objects. i've seen these debates before over a baby's skin tones and rarely the qualifiers regarding lighting conditions. photographers also use filters on their cameras and lights. so, making a baby's skin 'perfect' to some fixed standard may not always be the right way to go.

Craig

I'll be entering this contest in a few days, when I get a little time.

However, I do have two questions.

(1) To the owner of the picture, can we use the before and our afters as examples on our website portfolios? :)

(2) Everyone else, how much of the voting do you think will come down to color picking?

For me, I'm going to vote based on quality of physical restoration instead of color, then I'll take in account the colors, and accept pink or biege for the blanket and green or blue for the dress-- there's enough "proof" to support both scenarios.

But, if I was the client of this photo, I wouldn't care if you returned a biege blanket and a blue dress or a pink blanket and a green dress or vice versa, as long as you returned a photo I could frame, and looks like it fits into the parameters of the original. :happy:

I can only speak for myself, but I will vote for restorations looking natural and unmanipulated. I prefer some discolorations and noise rather than lack of texture or baby seems to be cut out.

I must say, it is very interesting reading about the different theories and ways to get to a certain color combination. Wow! I haven't gotten to much into photo restoration and I guess I never thought about how much could be read into one photo.

As for voting, I'm going with what looks "natural". Pink or beige aside. ;)

by RooB... But, if I was the client of this photo, I wouldn't care if you returned a biege blanket and a blue dress or a pink blanket and a green dress or vice versa, as long as you returned a photo I could frame, and looks like it fits into the parameters of the original.

I have already submitted a result, like I explained in a previous comment here, is more intuitive than technical. I am not happy with the result and am preparing another one based on some, or a mix of the various approaches discussed here. But will use my own judgement as a "client" regarding what I would be happy to have on my desk.

As to voting I go with RooB's opinion it is the baby looks that counts, I would not like to have a blotchy skinned photo of my daughter or grandaughter sitting on my desk, no matter how close to the original picture it may look. :)

Regards to all, Martha - :wavey:



P.S.: Well instead of opening a new post I decided to add to this one.
Have replaced the previous submission with the one I was working on --as mentioned above-- I tried to remove the reddish-yellow tint and get a more realistic look.

Also, used as little blurring as I managed (being a newbie, old habits are not easy to drop ;) ). I would have liked to get rid of all the unused and unnecessary "real estate" around the baby, but then the original photo would not have been respected, as to size that is, since I used my personal taste for the colouring :blush:

Ohh ! well, the good thing about this is that thanks to all the exchange of opinions and techniques by the true pros here I learnt many new things. Congratulations and thanks to all again. :nod:

Martha :)

It's possible the yellow was painted on. There are drops of intense yellow on the photo. The cast looks unequal. There is also a heavy black line around her head. Maybe the little girl wanted to play?

As I wrote in my contest entry, I think the tissue is grey with green highlights when seen from certain angles. I've seen expensive shirts like that.

Pierre

Well i am seriously scared at judging this one, all of them are marvelously done!!!

So is it still in the 5 order of merit?

As I wrote in my contest entry, I think the tissue is grey with green highlights when seen from certain angles. I've seen expensive shirts like that.

I can see where you're coming form but I dont think thats it, irredecent fabric is a relatively recent thing (last 10 years or so). Based on Phil's DOB and the fact that she just got married I would estimate that this is a 70's photo.
Even if the fabric was available then I dont think it would be suitable for babies, as you said, its often used for expensive shirt - not things that are going to be drooled and puked on ;)
Just MHO though... I wasnt born so I could be wrong

Hello All,

Just my two cents worth. I am very pleased with the discussion surrounding the original color, the material, the potential for fade or protection of color on the edges and the numerous other technical points being discussed.

This is what I signed on for. We have all focussed on the technical here: color; restoration; background color; . We haven't blurred things out - excessively - or introduced extraneous material.

Thank you for some very educational discussion and methodologies to approach such situations.

Sean

I just figured a whitish grey color had been discolored over time. I kinda went by the rattle and since it was close but a little lighter that the material must have been more of a greyish white. I like it better that way actually just because it doesn't drown the skin tone too much.

Forgive me for not following this discussion more closely. I've been out of town recently and haven't been paying proper attention to this thread. I apologize to you guys for that.
I talked to my wife in a little more detail about the Photosession that my step daughter, Regan had in about 1978. She had the photo taken at some studio and the mat she was on was sheepskin. Regan's checkered outfit was an AquaMarine Color. The texture in the submitted Tiff file was from the Print Paper. I scanned it at a very high resolution with no retouching or color adjustment before I submitted it. The rattle on the right side of the photograph was in about the same color as it was when the photo was taken. I should be back home again shortly. Thank heavens and I'll be happy to fill in what other blanks I can.

Phil

... I should be back home again shortly. Thank heavens and I'll be happy to fill in what other blanks I can.
Phil
Welcome back Phil. We were getting ready to send out a search team! :)

We're all dying to hear your recollection of the colors and such, as I'm sure you can tell! Since everyone has worked so hard on their entries based only on the info we had, and it's late in the game, might it be better to hold off on the details until the end, so as not to risk influencing the voting? Just a thought...

Anyways, I for one will be interested in hearing "...the rest of the story..." after the contest!

- Kurt

oh dear, aqua marine comes to mine, lol

wow, that's quite interesting... the material being aqumarine. I did some research a few days ago into material of 'the day', specifically a dotted pattern used for baby clothes. Anyway I turned up this material called Dotted Swiss, first released in the 1950's.

This brings up a few possibilties... either the material was re-introduced in the 70's OR maybe it was a keepsake from an earlier generation? It's a pretty good match to Phil's description anyway.

I've decided not to change my entry in light of this though. i started with a slightly more greenish aquamarine than in this example but then thought the little suit might look nicer in a completely different colour... Bad retoucher... very bad boy! You guys will see later on today when I post my entry. Not expecting to get many votes but I think you'll like it Phil. I hope so.

CS! Peth.

Aquamarine stones (http://www.all-that-gifts.com/se/aquamarine.html) vary from sky blue to greenish blue to bluish green, so there is a lot of leeway :D .

The Wikipedia defines the color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquamarine_(color)) as red 128, green 255 and blue 212 or as hue 160, saturation 50% and brightness 100%.

Pierre

Incidentally, there are no restrictions on this photo and anyone can use it as they see fit. The print that I scanned was a 5 x 7 print scanned at a very high resolution. It was not framed in recent memory but was kept in the attic in a pile of other stuff.

Deep Joy

Nice timing Phil. :rolleyes:

I really think this info should have come at the beginning or the end. Not when many of us may not have time to change things.

I will not be deducting marks for any entries background or dress colour. There was nothing in the original to make us think that any blue needed adding. So there must be some selective fading.

I will see if I can find time to change mine but if not I think we’re all agreed that fawn, beige, pink or blue is OK.

I do think an aquamarine dress would look better.


Ken

Well I did not give out much information. I submitted the photo and sort of let er rip. I did not know the exact color myself until I pestered my sweet wife about the details of the photo. From my perspective the final color of Regan's outfit ought not to be a major factor in judging. But hey I just submitted the photo and you guys will need to vote on who did the best job. Personally I think there are a number of excellent restorations of Regan on this contest.

I’m glad you like them Phil.

We have had some great discussion on the colours this month.

I still can’t understand why there appears to be jpeg artifacts in the Tiff file.

Ken

Nice one for posting the photos history Phil, it clears up the discussion on colours etc :) . Don't think it should make any difference to the voting, or make people change their entries. The quality of the final image is what counts, and the way methods used have realistically repaired/restored/reconstructed the image :) .

Boy how could that be. At any rate I opened the Regan.tiff file that I submitted and looked at it,and there were jpeg artifacts in the tiff file.

I pulled the original photo which is about 6&5/8 inches by 4&3/4. The paper is a satin texture and cracked in numerous places. I rescanned the print at the same 300 dpi and saved it as a tiff file. No jpeg artifacts. The photo that I submitted is a comparison of the submitted photo versus a rescanned photo in tiff mode. To post the photo I had to save it again as a jpeg but I believe you can see the difference if you download the photo and zoom in. The photo is from Regan's right eye area.

I guess in conclusion CameraKen is correct. There are jpeg artifacts in the file and the artifacts came from my submission somehow. I submitted the photo about two months ago so I don't know how I messed up.

No worries Phil, just adds to the challenge!

I agree with Peth, Phil - we like a challenge, and you did good! Now if only I could get my customers to send in scans half as good as this one, even with the JPEG artifacts... :normal:

- Kurt

Phil,

I agree with Peth and Kurt. It added to my learning process. I used the FFT filter for the first time. :pleased:

Lorraine

Well thanks everybody. I've learned a lot from this contest too.

I am trying to edit the image. but r