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

Most members are eager to hear comments/suggestions about their entries, so please take the time to help each other out.

I just saw the image.... and I have one word to describe the challenge:
Ykes!!!!!!!!!!


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

Most members are eager to hear comments/suggestions about their entries, so please take the time to help each other out.

Nice image. Shame its so small though. :square:

The tiff is 2Mb aceman.

Hmmm, the final entry has to be square (which the original isnt) and we're not allowed to crop it....

Glad there's a whole month to try this one... two would be better! :dizzy:

This one looks like fun!

Aceman is right though - the dimensions are fairly small. All part of the challenge I suppose.

There is a link on top:
Retrieve uncompressed archival TIFF version (2 megabytes)
Something big enough to stay working on it for a while:)

The image is square... it is the board that is not....

The tiff is 2Mb aceman.

Hmmm, the final entry has to be square (which the original isnt) and we're not allowed to crop it....

The image is square... it is the board that is not....
I guess that comes down to interpretation of 'image' ;) The total image is not sqaure, the photograph that forms part of the image may be (I havent measured it ;) )
The rules say we're not allowed to crop the image. Now the two interpretations of that I can come up with, says either, make the canvas larger to fill the required dimensions and completely cover the card with made up stuff OR, crop the image to leave just the photo and the two curved top corners of the card and cover those up - I'll probably go with the latter, easier option :p

Oh goodness. We should have had the long month of May to work on this one!! Good luck all!!

The other potential point of confusion, is the statement regarding final size: Final image must be exactly 750 pixels square

Mathematically, if one says something is 4 inches (or 4 meters, or 4 miles...) square, it means that one side times the other equals 4. So it could be 1x4 or 2x2 etc

In this case, obviously, 750 pixels square, means a square with sides of 750 pixels each.

I guess that comes down to interpretation of 'image' ;) The total image is not sqaure, the photograph that forms part of the image may be (I havent measured it ;) )
The rules say we're not allowed to crop the image. Now the two interpretations of that I can come up with, says either, make the canvas larger to fill the required dimensions and completely cover the card with made up stuff OR, crop the image to leave just the photo and the two curved top corners of the card and cover those up - I'll probably go with the latter, easier option :p

Oh goodness. We should have had the long month of May to work on this one!! Good luck all!!
Honestly - I dont think 1 more day would make a difference on this one ;)

The tiff is 2Mb aceman.

Ok I meant dimensions. The original is 3 cm by 3 cm. Its very doable though.

For clarification....

* Remove all traces of the card backing but do not crop out any of the actual image

* Final image must be exactly 750 pixels square (750 pixels wide by 750 pixels high)

I'll go ahead and jump in. Coloring is NOT my forte, but I wanna be able to vote.

Anybody notice that there aren't many "happy" people in this photo, except the mother of the bride over there on the left peek-a-booing everyone. LOL

Hi Swampy :wavey:,

I believe the mother of the bride you're referring to, whose clothes you colored blue, was actually a statue. It's base was behind the potted plant. At first, I also thought she was one of the entourage, but there was something odd about the positioning of her body.

Anyway, my hats off to you for being the first one to submit an entry. :thumbsup: This is a difficult photo to color. Too many details.

I don't know Soleah - I have been looking at this woman all day as I work on the image and think she is real.
First off if this was a statue based on the angle she is leaning it would fall over.
Also when you look at the flow of her shaw it covers the other woman - see insert - I do not beleive the other woman would be wraped around a statue. Judging by how the others are dressed this woman does stand out as --- how do you say it ---- " that special relative" ! LOL
I think she is real.

I am choosing to let her stand out a bit more as the "special relative" I think she is :grin:

congrats Swampy for the first entry - this is a very difficult color to say the least. I am struggeling with my colors - well except for the floosy with a smile!

When I first looked at the photo I thought the woman on the far left (dark dress), was carrying the torso of a manequin...

Then I realized the she is holding the "special relative"... or a statue...

I don't know Soleah - I have been looking at this woman all day as I work on the image and think she is real.
First off if this was a statue based on the angle she is leaning it would fall over.
Also when you look at the flow of her shaw it covers the other woman - see insert - I do not beleive the other woman would be wraped around a statue. Judging by how the others are dressed this woman does stand out as --- how do you say it ---- " that special relative" ! LOL
I think she is real.

I am choosing to let her stand out a bit more as the "special relative" I think she is :grin:

congrats Swampy for the first entry - this is a very difficult color to say the least. I am struggeling with my colors - well except for the floosy with a smile!

Based on the base, her odd and very dark colouring, her missing arms and legs, immodest dress, and the fact she looks drunk compared to the rest of the party I'm guessing statue.

Based on the base, her odd and very dark colouring, her missing arms and legs, immodest dress, and the fact she looks drunk compared to the rest of the party I'm guessing statue.

OK call me crazy --- but who would have a half dressed drunk as a statue at a wedding???? :question: lol

so let's take this one step further the person at Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division is bored and has photoshop and says " hey! I think it would be funny to put this "madem" in this wedding picture- maybe it will go on retouchPro and those guys will go nuts trying to figure out how the half dressed woman got in the picture!" :ditsy:

I say DRESSER her up and have fun with it!

Still can't get past the flow of the shaw next to the other woman.

Yeah its definately a statue. If you look closely you can see the base.

Jill, she/it does look off-balanced either way. If she is real I'm a little surprised the photo made it into the wedding album let alone the Library of Congress.

would love to go with the statue but!!!!! look at the line it does not add up in my book - base vs. floosy.

My husband gusses some type of ash tray or cigar tray is the base item we are seeing.

Sticking with my gut --- she jumped out as the photo was taken ----
Aunt MADEM just look at the brides face "who invieted HER !!! :bawling:

I opted for the "not so proper family member" rather than a statue. I can't see a statue of that nature at a wedding unless it was a joke on the "happy" couple. :lol:

Cathy :grin:

Also notice hair tie --- I do not think her hair is showing but tied in a wrap around the hair with the bow at top and hat over it ...... ??????

very 50's

:eek: OMGosh! this is going to be tough!!!

I think she is a statue... :confused:

the only way i can interpret the rules here is as my attached shows. since the upper edge is arched and since we have to remove all of the card backing and since we cant drop out any of the actual photograph, i dont see how it could be any other way. (it's sloppy, but it shows what i mean)

and, with that in mind, as of right this minute, to me, the first two entries are invalid... but then, i'm probably reading something wrong in the rules again :(

craig

edit: actually, i just took a closer look at cazubi's and it seems fine. nice job, cathy and very clever :)

whether or not she is a statue (I'm undecided, its strange for either) thats defiantely not her base
I'm tempted to say she wasnt in the original photograph and has been added later, she just doesnt match anything in the picture, her skin is too dark, her dress is inappropriate and no-one is loking disdainfully at her as she ruins that wedding photo.

After further investigation, I reckon she's a statue or someone messing about with the photos.

http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3b20000/3b25000/3b25300/3b25319u.tif

clearly a different wedding, probably the same location - if you look carefully you might see miss special relative on this one too ;)

Well Im going to have to agree to disagree with some of you on this one. I am convinced that its a statue with a base. She doesn't form out of the top of the base in the middle is all.

here she is yet again LOL!!!

here she is yet again LOL!!!
Good find, I missed that one. Still an awful statue though - but very detailed

couldn't resist Nancy -- had to look for more photos of her -- this was just too funny!

to the skeptics -- mystery solved!

Marsha

:lmao: Too funny!!!! thank you for finding her in other photos!

How funny that the photographer has a "floozy" statue in his wedding shots. I wonder if it was a joke, or it was significant for the time era?

Craig: I did not crop any of the image. I cloned the corners to match the rest of the photo. Thanks.

Cathy ;)

Good eyes, Nancy & Marsha. I looked for her in some of those other photos, too, but I guess not in the right ones. Or I didn't look hard enough.

The tip-off for me was that the tonality and texture of the "special relative's" skin are different from everybody else's (darker and shinier) and the same as her clothes and hat. It took me a while to put her in the same plane as the base but when I tumbled to the fact that she's only a bust it started to make sense.

Another tidbit: these photos are concocted. ("TITLE: Stereographs of staged marriage ceremonies")

I'm still deciding whether to give this a go or not. It ain't gonna be easy.

dc

Craig.. I did not crop either. I made a selection of the photo area, and did a transform to stretch it out to fit the square.

If you look closely behind the left front palm tree you will see what looks like the base of a pillar that a statue or bust might sit on, but I like to think she is the crazy "floozy" aunt that always cuts up at family occasions. Everyone else is so somber!! arrrgh.

cathy,

yes, you'll notice my edit. i did catch this almost immediately after posting. you did such a good job you fooled me :)

and dee dee,

yours is cut off at the top. if you look at the picture frame in the background and the light (chandelier?) you'll see what i mean. but, if i've missed something here, why just bang me on the head and i'll shut up.

craig

LOL Craig... may have missed the chandalier, I just wanted to get the damn thing done and posted so I could watch the color experts show off... LOL

I like to think she is the crazy "floozy" aunt that always cuts up at family occasions. Everyone else is so somber!! arrrgh.

I agree - I have gone back and forth - make her look "real" :tongue:
Or make her look like a statue! :cool:

I think I am leaning to the crazy "floozy" aunt :lol:

Even though she's clearly a statue, I dont think the small structure behind the plant pot is her base but I wont be penalising anyone for making it so, OR for making her into the floosy aunt ;)

You'd think a staged picture would be less haphazard, its almost like there are several photographers and everyone is looking at a different one

The statue does look off balance if you consider the base, but looking at aceman's attached image on post#29, he drew a vertical line from the base to the torso, that there is the center of gravity. :glasses:

The shoulder/chest is leaning on the left but the neck/head is leaning towards the right to balance it.

I do agree that even if that is a statue, there is nothing wrong with coloring her like a floosy aunt, base or no base.

Maybe the statue is the camerman's prop.

" Everyone, this is how stupid smiling people look, could you all look morbid and unhappy so you dont ruin the picture.. "

" Everyone, this is how stupid smiling people look, could you all look morbid and unhappy so you dont ruin the picture.. "
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



You'd think a staged picture would be less haphazard, its almost like there are several photographers and everyone is looking at a different one

I was thinking the same thing "why is everyone looking in different directions?"

You would think they would all be looking at the bride.

Sorry to have missed the statue discussion. I've also been wondering who/what that woman with no arms could be.

Thanks for all the information.

Lorraine

The statue does look off balance if you consider the base, but looking at aceman's attached image on post#29, he drew a vertical line from the base to the torso, that there is the center of gravity. :glasses:
Just because you can draw a straight line between two objects, doesnt mean they are connected ;)

Just because you can draw a straight line between two objects, doesnt mean they are connected ;)

:grin: :grin: :grin:
No, it does not. The line just illustrates the center of gravity. Okay, maybe the next thing you will say is "Just because you can draw a straight line between two objects, doesn't mean it's the center of gravity....."

I give up, I have no answer to that. :wink: :grin:

Too funny - :dizzy:

here we have a bride and groom - yet our center of attention is the "special relative" ! LOL

I just can't wait to see what everyone does with her. :D

I think this has become the BEST challenge yet.

Just because you can draw a straight line between two objects, doesnt mean they are connected ;)

But disconnecting the two objects does create two new problems - a big grand base supporting nothing, and a floating statue with nothing under it. :scared: The center of gravity does appear to run up close to her ear, which would mean most of that very heavy head might balance the rest of the bust.

Makeovermagic,

I went back to the LOC and retrieved the original that you posted.
I think we all agree it is not a person. But it is not a statue either:
it is a sculpture of a bust on top a pedestal.

The reason why it doesn't seem to align with the column is because the base is offset to right, the chest offset to the left and the head to the right.

This is a different wedding and this image has a different pedestal but the room is the same.

If you want to see the complete stereograph:
http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3c00000/3c07000/3c07900/3c07960u.tif


here she is yet again LOL!!!

It's a different pedestal/base alright. The sculpture is at a more awkward angle than the first one. Ohh...this is giving me a headache :hurt:

Does anybody have an idea when this photo was taken?

I suspect it's something in this genre (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=Art+Nouveau+Bust&btnG=Search).

The photo date should be on the download site.

On the download site it says 1897.

Cathy :cat:

Thanks Doug, Cathy!

I love your work Cathy, very vintage.

As luck would have it the photographer moved the plant and took a second shot.

HEHE nicely done doug.

This is a commercial stereograph produced massively mainly for entertainment and information purposes. Probably it is not real weeding photograph, just a studio recreation to tell a story (stereographs are frequently described as the “Victorian television” for his popularity).

Nice work Doug. Try this site to see a collection of wedding stereographs from "The Universal Photo Art Co." This contest is proving to be very educational.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/p?pp/app,grabill,lomax,pan,wtc,ils,vv,gottscho,detr,bbcards,prok,nclc,fsa:@FILREJ(@FIELD(CALL+@od1(LOT%203521))+@FIELD(COLLID+coll))::SortBy=DOCID

Thanks soleah.

Cathy :thumbsup:

Well done, Doug. Now it all makes sense.

That site is very interesting, the bust is in several of the one I clicked on.
And is that a flower she has clenched in her teeth?
Cathyh

I am now torn between making the "floozy" a bust, or fun loving guest. Since the originals were not in color, maybe the sculpture was meant to really look like a guest. For now I will leave her in my entry as a unique wedding guest, but I will enjoy seeing how everyone else interprets her.

Cathy :happy:

I think, Cathy, the way you colored your floozy, could still pass for a bust. I saw that coloring in one bust that I saw. You're safe.

agreed!

like I said before it will be interesting to see what everyone does with "Aunt Floozy" :lol:

Thanks Aceman, Cathy and Swampy. I think I found evidence of the actual bust base and pedestal top in the original and have adjusted my pic to fit. The result looks a little less tippy now.

great work Doug Thanks!

Well I have tweaked this till I am cross eyed! :dizzy:

I used the selection tool selecting the larger areas copy and paste to a new layer - started with using the Chanel mixer to get the color then swithed to selecting a color and using Hue and Sat clicking the colorize box.
Then created layer to Blend mode to Color, and painted in additional color to the bottom layer. Some areas I just created a new layer blend mode to color and painted in the area. Created new layers blend mode soft light used black and white to add a bit more depth.

I worked with two monitors - one my lighter the other much darker to try and balance the color.

Any comments or suggestions are welcome.

3. Tasks:

* Remove all traces of the card backing but do not crop out any of the actual image

Swampy,

It appears that you have lost a bit off the top, bottom, left, and right of the original photo. Please correct your entry to avoid being disqualified.

~THANKS

Update: This entry has been corrected. :)

I have reposted, Thanks, TP

Swampy

you might want to check your entry - your edit seems to have made it very dark.

Peter

Actually, Peter, I went for a dark look. I really wanted to bring out the bride and did a two curves adjustmenst. One to darkent the entire image and another to lighten it again to bring up the whites, then added a mask to the lighter curves and painted in the bride's gown, veil etc. to emphasize the "purity".

I know, it's artsy and not "true" to the original image's luminance, but I didn't see anything in the rules about that kind of change.

Just checking in case it was a mistake :dizzy: :dizzy:

3. Tasks:

* Remove all traces of the card backing but do not crop out any of the actual image
oltenius,

It appears that you have lost some of the original information from the sides of the photo. Please correct your entry to avoid being disqualified.

~THANKS

...I just did some tweak-age to my post...

Loraine,

Your work is so nice that I just have to point out an oversight. In the LLH potted plant there's a fish head peaking out that's apparently on that pedestal. Maybe its a snake of Eden fame?

Thanks for your comments on my entry and for the tip.

Unfortunately, I've gone back and looked at the original, and I can't make out anything in that area that looks like a fish head. :)

There is one spot that seems to be protuding from the base, and I couldn't figure out what it is. I've circled that area and am asking if that's what you are seeing.

Thanks again,

Lorraine

...I couldnt find the fishhead either ;)

see attached.

Thats just the second step of the base, isn't it? You can see the other side of it to the left :spchless:

No. You are looking too low.

I checked a few entries. Cazubi, Veryweird, and Gary Richardson all found it.

I still don't see a fish, just the stand. Maybe this will make it clear?

Ah, now I see what you are talking about. But that's just a reconstruction of what someone thinks they see, right?

I have triple checked the high-resolution tiff. My fish has a mouth, two eyes, and lips. It is not the middle rim on the column.

Looks more like the hamburgular (from McDonalds) to me...

Let me see if I get this straight:
we are talking about the bust of a "floozy" on top of a pedestal with a fish head in it. Did I get this right?

It sounds like something Salvador Dali would have done :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

A FISH HEAD --- oh no! what did I miss! LOL

But that's just a reconstruction of what someone thinks they see, right?
And the fish is only what you think you can see.
What I see is a double hexagonal rim with a stud on top that marks each point. None of the other shots in that collection seem to show a fish? Or did I miss it :dizzy:

Personally I think it's a cow dressed up as a fish, who is pretending to be a bust :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

blue dog,

Thanks, I now see what you're talking about. To me, it looks like a smiling catfish , minus the whiskers. :)

I do have it in mine, but I colored it green. I thought it was just another one of those infernal palm leaves. Or, then, maybe it's a frog and really should be green. LOL!!!

Every time I worked on this in color I found more and more in the photo. If I had my choice I would have just eliminated "Aunt Floozy " entirely. :devious:

Thanks for your help.

Lorraine

Well, I've decided to start my submission over. I know, I know, but it IS a learning experience for me. Organizationally, I lost control of mine after about 15 layers. Let's rethink and re-strategize, and THIS TIME I WILL label the layers! Honest.

"What I see is a double hexagonal rim with a stud on top that marks each point.":

"Marks each point"? Of WHAT? Don't tell me this is now a navigational aid! AHAH! A Dali navigational aid for cross-eyed sailors. Photoshop Chris: note that he line of the "double hexagonal lip" isn't even close to being parallel with the rest of your monument.

Did Doug select this out of some evil and devious plot to drive us all crazy!? or , was it all accidental? "The Accidental Fish Head".

I confess...I colored it, but I did not know it was a fish head. I think this is a trick photo and if you look long enough maybe the "floozy" perched on a fish head has a friend in there that we haven't found yet. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Blue dog, I know what you mean about the endless layers. I finally appreciate the layer group sets.

Cathy :dizzy:

Did Doug select this out of some evil and devious plot to drive us all crazy!?

Moi? :devil:

Found her arms.

Doug Colwell,

BIG :classic: !!!

Lorraine

:lmao: Doug - that is toooooo funny!

Oh my. Too much Photoshop time Doug. :lol:

I have been studying these people for so long now and, of course in great detail, that I have begun amusing myself with attributions about the individual people and the who, what, and why of them. While I am still uncertain about many, and still trying out theories about them, it has suddenly struck me who two of these people are and what they are about.

From somewhere, I'm not certain, I recall that women in America, during this time before the sufferage movement, observed certain rules of etiquette that might help us discover them. I recall that young, unmarried women wore their hair down and rarely cut it, whereas older married women always wore their hair shorter and certainly up. The one exception to the marriage-hair rule was the spinster who eventually felt too much a spectacle and began wearing her hair up, even though she may not yet be resigned to actually cutting it, almost in recognition of her acceptance of the spinster life. If anyone is lost, I suggest that you review "Music Man" or even the later "Carosel". And, anyone who may have actually studied womens history should speak up because this may just be some fractured memory of too many Hollywood generalizations and characterizations for the benefit of character development or plot.

So, examining the left-most 'young' lady, note the quite high behive hair-do which is 'up' but certainly requiring a lot of longish hair, appears to be a spinster, probably the town's librarian. Next to her, and person whose true sexuality has bothered me from the beginning, we have yet another somewhat older, less attractive and, dare I say, more masculine lady with again the behive hair, again suggesting a virtuous spinster. She may, perhaps, operate the town's Rooming House and give piano lessons on the side. Together they look gosipy, but always within the bounds of proper public behavior. At first I thought that the younger was whispering in the older's ear. Now though, I like to think that she is actually nibbling on her ear as the picture really suggests.

Well, 3 day weekend for me, so time-out. This story may or may not be resumed. Go ahead and add to it if you care.

Is it an ear?

Oh Doug you are out of control ! :lmao:

Blue Dog wrote: "This story may or may not be resumed. Go ahead and add to it if you care."

As the joyus couple walk down the green mile, all the groom could think was
"there is a woman growing out of the top of my head!" :scared:

Jill, this photo just seems to invite goofiness. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :clown:

My hat goes off to those who accepted and followed through with this contest challenge. Colorizing is not my thing and when I looked at this picture, my only thought was "Holy Smoke that's one tough picture..." Having just colorized a simple shot for a client and spending several hours trying to do a great job for them, I'm glad I elected to stay away from one with "...with all those details!"

Again, :bow: :bow: :bow:

Janet

This was tough, but hey! What a way to learn!

This was my second try at colorizing and I experimented almost endlessly :dizzy:

still didn't see a fish...
does this mean I'd fail the inkblot test?

Daviskw

4. When you submit your entry put your username in the filename (ie: tpaul.jpg). This is so users can save the images to a local directory and remember who did what--important when it comes time to vote.

Please correct your entry to avoid being disqualified.

Update: Entry has been corrected.

I know its a little late, but there it is.


Feel free to add this bit of irony to your entry.

hi
I tried to post a entry, but it doesn't look it took.
:-(
cathy

Hello all

This may have already been discussed, I was wondering how long it took for you to complete your colorization.

I worked a good solid 2 1/2 hours on mine and my fingers were killing me. At the end I found myself bent over my keyboard with my nose 2 inches from the screen.

Butch

Hello Butch,
I did mine in 2-½ hrs, same as yours. The restoration took 30 minutes, colorization took 2 hrs. But I didn't work on the colorization straight 2hrs. First day I spent 20 mins, some days 10mins...
Maybe that's the reason why there's less than 20 entries this month. It's not that the would be entrants don't know what to do. They don't have that much time to spare.

Oooh yeah, time consuming indeed... was this meant to be a colourization contest or a patience contest :lol: I have to say I spent more time on this one than I care to admit... but then again I am unemployed at the moment so I have plenty of time to kill. This was definately a challenge, after all that fine, fiddly work I did I was loth to reduce my 'layerific' tiff to post specs :sad:

Hi Butch. I didn't keep track, but I'm guessing I spent 3 or 4 hours. I'm probably slower than most, but I watch TV while I work. It also takes me longer to type colourize.

Your entry is most excellent! Very nice job! I gave up after about 8 hours and the realization that I had only managed to colorize a fern.

It took me about 4 hour all together,but spread out over a few days. I spent about an hour or so restoring the photo and then the rest of the time
"painting" the color on many layers. There were so many things to color that it really was a challenge to finish it.

Cathy :bigthmb:

Butch, I worked on mine so much I think I'm going through withdrawl. :blush:

I have only done one other colorization and wasn't happy with what I did so this was a major learning experience. LOTS of experimentation, often not even saving when I didn't like it. My work flow was very erratic,jumped around all over the place and halfway thru the colorization process I found myself redoing the restoration on the B/W background...

Sherry

I know what you mean by withdrawal… I liked doing it, very interesting and educational. I see all the experts say you should have a plan before you start… Not me… just jump in and improvise on the fly and hope for the best. Like you I was moving layers up and down to try and make it easy. I actually had to NAME layers… :nod:

Butch

Hello all

This may have already been discussed, I was wondering how long it took for you to complete your colorization.

I worked a good solid 2 1/2 hours on mine and my fingers were killing me. At the end I found myself bent over my keyboard with my nose 2 inches from the screen.

Butch

I spent 2-3 days on and off total hours- maybe 5?

koodos to all that have entered :pleased:
This was a very difficult challange!

I missed the deadline, as I've been busy working on a few net projects.
Did this in about 1 hour using colour replacement brush only, and lots of colour adjustments :dizzy:
Fixed corners by flipping image and cloning over blanks areas.

Too bad you missed the deadline, Chris. I wish I could do it as fast as you do, took you only an hour. And a great job both on restoration and colorization. :bigthmb:

Thanks Ajava. You are very kind :)

I failed to mention that I also spent an inordinate amount of time staring at my entry.

Lucky, I already have a work flow on the restoration. Otherwise, the actual work would have taken longer.

To be honest, the quality of the high res version of mine isn't good. But when you are reducing the size to 750x750, it doesn't really matter :wink: rough colouring on a large image looks OK when reduced down. As does rough cloning. As you will see below, the cloned area looks totally out of place full size and a bit of a mess as far as colours go :D

Voting is now open (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?p=125613#post125613) ...

Makeovermagic has been kind enough to once again create a photo album for easier viewing...

Click here (http://www.makeovermagic.org/June06RPContest/)

Just like to point out that the album is resizing the images to 600x600 and may be loosing some detail from the entries. File sizes seem to be changing too? Might be better going to original entries until that is fixed ;)

hi chris,

thanks for pointing that out -- it was an auto resizing done within jalbum -- i am fixing to correct size -- will be up in a few minutes.

Marsha

It's up but it's resized the 600x600 pics to 750x750. You need to set it to link to originals so they don't resize, and rebuild all :bigthmb:

Thanks for the Album, but the colours don,t look right either, at least on my screen anyway???? maybe its the resampling gone astray???

sorry about the mess -- i'll give it another try -- hope it's not too late.

i think i got it -- I HOPE I GOT IT -- please let me know if i didn't get it :dizzy:

thanks, and i apologize for the inconvenience.

Marsha

Thanks for the gallery, Marsha. :pleased: I hope you don't get tired of it.

Soleah, Lorraine & Swampy (from the voting thread),

Your welcome!

Marsha

I posted my L A T E entry under Critique. Please give me a comment or two.

At the last minute (after the deadline) I finally saw that the perspective is way off and decided to fix it, since I was already late. Now I see that no one else fixed it. Was that an oversight or artistic decision?

First off congratulations to ALL that tackled this challenge!!!

And the winner is....Soleah

The Prize:

A Coloriage v.2.0 plugin, donated by AKVIS (http://akvis.com/en/coloriage/index.php)

Top 5
Soleah - 54
Doug Colwell - 34
Cazubi - 29
Lorraine - 26
TwinbNJ - 17

Congratulations Soleah for your well deserved winning entry.

Congratulations also to all the "medallists", and indeed to all entrants. This was a fun one.

Congrats Etc. Stc. A great job done.

HEY I got one vote anyway - I'm happy.

Peter

Congratulations, Soleah. Your entry is excellent.

Congratulations to everyone who entered.

Lorraine

Wow! Thanks Gary, Peter, Lorraine and everyone else. This is truly an honor.

This isn't my first time at colorizing but I struggled just the same. First time I've done colorizing using only one layer. I thought since this is such a busy photo, it would be less confusing and would save time on naming layers.

I'll post my methods a little later.

My congratulations to all the participants. We all deserve a big round of applause.

Congratulations Soleah - definitely well deserved!

Congratulations soleah. You did a beautiful job.

Cathy :bigthmb:

Same to you too, Doug and Cathy.

Here’s my technique:
It was not the best but I hope you’ll find something useful.

Restoration:
1. Cloned/Copied foliage to cover card backing.
2. Used NeatImage on a duplicate layer, reduce opacity to 50%
3. Applied high amount of USM, mask fill with black. Brushed back sharpness on mask using white to various shades of gray.
a. White brush on eyes, nose, mouth & hair
b. The darkest gray was applied on the background.
c. For the folds of the gowns & men's jackets, used dark gray.
d. Various shades of gray on the rest.
Note: The image became blurry when scaled down to 750x750 jpeg file. I have to compensate by using a high amount of USM.
4. Curve adjustment layer, no change in values, opacity 60%, blending mode multiply.
5. Curve adjustment layer, no change in values, opacity 80%, blending mode screen.
6. Curve adjustment layer, no change in values, opacity 35%, blending mode soft light. Applied black brush on the mask to cover background. This will “lift” the party from the background.
Note: Steps 4, 5 & 6 will add density and crispness to the image. I especially like these because there’s no need to spend time tinkering with values except the opacity. Effective on faded, blurry b/w image such as this one.
7. Levels adjustment layer applied only on the men’s jackets and the lady’s dress on the left. Made it a little lighter.
Note: On the jpeg file, the darks lost some of the details. Otherwise, this one is not necessary for me.


Colorization:
8. Add sepia tone using hue/sat adj layer, opacity 80%. - To ensure coverage
9. Blank layer, blending mode color. Brushed on appropriate color.
a. For the bride’s gown, I chose off-white as the main color.
Note: Initially, the 3 brides maid, the wall, and the flower designs on the carpet have its own layer because I can’t decide on the color yet. For each I used solid color adjustment layer in blending mode color, this way I can easily change color at will. When I was satisfied with the colors, I merged everything in one layer. I still applied some colors to it after merging.
10. Blank layer, blending mode luminosity
a. For the bride’s gown and veil, used white brush at 20% opacity. This will take out the dinginess/grays on the gown.
b. For the bridesmaids’ gowns, used white brush at 15% opacity on the highlights only, to make the gown look light and airy.
c. For the men’s jackets and the lady on the left, used 10% opacity black brush. Also applied some on the hair.

Finishing Touches:
11. New layer fill with black, blending mode color dodge. With white soft brush at 2-8% opacity, brushed on the existing highlights to emphasize it.
a. Low opacity brush on the gowns, men’s jackets and on the "floozy".
b. Used higher opacity brush on choiced highlights on the bride’s wedding gown to simulate satin fabric.
c. Lower opacity brush on facial features like top of the brow, nose, cheek, chin, hair
d. Apply Gaussian blur
12. New Layer fill with white, blending mode color burn. With black soft brush at 2-8% opacity, brushed on the existing shadows to emphasize it.
a. Used lower opacity for the facial features and hair.
b. Brush on shadows or folds of the gowns
c. Apply Gaussian blur
Note: Step 11 & 12 will add dimension and sharpness to the image.

13. New layer fill with gray, blending mode overlay
a. Add noise
b. Apply Gaussian blur

Don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. I'm very glad to share these with you.

Attach image:
1. After restoration
2. After colorization
3. After finishing touches

Soleah,

Thank you for the great, detailed description. I've printed it, and am following your techniques on the original photo as practice.

Lorraine

Soleah,

Congrats on a wonderful job. Thank you for the detailed steps.

Congrats, Soleah!

Winner from the start!!

Well done Soleah

Thanks Lorraine, Jill, Swampy, Shalford. It was fun and hope to see you all in the August contest.

Congratulations Soleah!

just got back home otherwise would have posted sooner!
no more vacations till fall now...