May 05 Contest Discussion

[T Paul]

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

[Caitlin]

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

I presume that the rules proclude hand colouring?

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

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

[T Paul]

From Caitlin...moved from May 05 Contest Thread

Originally Posted by Caitlin

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

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

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

[soleah]

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

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

[chrishoggy]

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

[Caitlin]

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

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

[chrishoggy]

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

[Caitlin]

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

[Gary Richardson]

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

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

[Legacy~Art]

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

Gary is a nice guy who understands!

[Kraellin]

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

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

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

K.

[soleah]

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

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

[Doug Colwell]

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

[T Paul]

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

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

[soleah]

Thanks, Doug & TPaul.

[Sean2]

Hello All,

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

Conratulations to the winner (RH)!

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

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

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

Sean

[Kraellin]

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

The key to a good restoration is remaining true to the image. You want to clean up and restore the image…not change it.

that's from the contest rules on this challenge..... remaining true to the image! you look at what's there and do your best to bring it back to its original state based on the actual evidence in the original. that means, to me, that if an area is so badly damaged or faded, with no surrounding evidence on which to base the restore, you leave it alone!

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

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

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

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

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

good luck

K.

[byRo]

Originally Posted by Kraellin

so, you see, i'm not only a compulsive nitpicker..

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

Rô

[Flora]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by T Paul

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

The key to a good restoration is remaining true to the image. You want to clean up and restore the image…not change it.

...otherwise .... why bother with all the work? ....

[chrishoggy]

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

[Gary Richardson]

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

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

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

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

Just want to wish everyone good luck with their entries.

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

[byRo]

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

Let's change our profession - instead of being photo restorers, let's be automobile restorers.....

We have two cars to restore, one is a very common model and one of unknown origin.
The first one is well-documented with original plans, drawings, photos.
The second one doesn't have any information at all, just the battered car in your hands.

The first one you can restore (

the act or process of returning something to its earlier good condition

) but the second you just can't.
If the second is only slightly damaged then maybe nobody is going to disagree with your "restoration". But, if is badly damaged - or worse, with parts missing - then you are doing a "reconstruction" based on personal experience.

Here, of course, we are fixing up the second and not the first. There is no "original" which can be used as a base for restoration. The only information we have is the posted image and the rest is just inference and personal judgement / taste / investigation.

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

Rô

[Caitlin]

Originally Posted by byRo

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

Rô

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

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

[Jaime]

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

http://www.digitalcustom.com/howto/r...guidelines.asp

Any opinion about this document will be appreciated.

[byRo]

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

[Duv]

Jaime, that was very interesting. Thank you.

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

Dave

[chrishoggy]

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

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

[Gary Richardson]

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

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

[chrishoggy]

Good point

[Flora]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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