Please rate this, and tell me why!

[pepperspray]

On a scale of say, 1 - 10, what would you rate the attached restoration try at, and why.


I was just having a go at an image that ...well, I'm not too up on the jargon, but you'll see what I mean when you view the original.


Personally, I found it to be quite a tricky image (I realise your mileage may vary ), and I think I did pretty darned well. However, I'd like a more jauniced, unbiased eye to take a look and make comments accordingly: what's right and what's wrong with my restore, so that I may grow and learn!


Cheers!


Petra



(By the way, be harsh if you need to get a negative critique across, as I'm pretty thick skinned, and very open to it. Ta. )

[byRo]

I deducted three points and gave it a 7.

- 0.1 Because it's more of a retouch than a restoration;
- 0.1 Because I think you darkened the old man in the hat too much and lost a bit of precious detail ;
- 2.8 Because you didn't do the easiest part of all!! Fixing the white frame would have made a LOT of difference to the end result.


Rô

[pepperspray]

Thanks, byRo!


I'm not too bothered by the blazing blue text ( ), because that is the very last thing I'm worried about, and I'll do it after I'm 100% happy with the picture itself. I'll be 100% happy later.

I'm not sure what you mean by restore vs. retouch in this instance. I always thought that a retouch was, I dunno, more glamour-oriented or something; and restore was ...ummm, more old photos kinda thing. Clear as mud, I thought!

Can you elaborate a bit, so I know more about what to think about?


I agree with you about the darkening (and fully understand what you mean!)

I've tried to tweak the curves and even did so by separating the lights, using a non-contigous magic wand set at a tolerance of 126 pixels and feathered at 2 pixels (and inverse for the darks) to give me more control (don't really know if it did or not, but thought it was worth a go).

But I'll try again. Maybe a layer of the orginal pic, with reduced opacity and fill, and some degree of "blend if" would work? I need to get my head around that "blend if" thing more...

[byRo]

Originally Posted by pepperspray

I'm not sure what you mean by restore vs. retouch in this instance. I always thought that a retouch was, I dunno, more glamour-oriented or something; and restore was ...ummm, more old photos kinda thing. Clear as mud, I thought!

Can you elaborate a bit, so I know more about what to think about?

Just kidding! When we say restoration we're usually talking about creases, tears, stains and missing bits. In this case it's just a bit of selective darkening, which is a technique usually associated with retouching.

Originally Posted by pepperspray

Maybe a layer of the orginal pic, with reduced opacity and fill, and some degree of "blend if" would work? I need to get my head around that "blend if" thing more...

Don't need to complicate that much.
The only real problem that you have here is an unbalanced histogram - lots of dark, lots of light and few mid-greys.
A quick fix is to duplicate to a new layer and run Image>Adjustments>Equalize, then fade the opacity back until it looks good (I used 35%).

Here's your image squared up, equalized and (of course) with a nice white border.

Rô

[Ying]

8.5
The whole photo is a bit too dark, especially grandpa's face. You could remove the 2 dark spots from the wooden door too.
And the grass and leaves shouldn't be so sharp, after all the focus should be on the people.
You could try converting the photo to duotone, I think the original is somewhat toned (the grey is warm grey).

[pepperspray]

Originally Posted by byRo

Just kidding! When we say restoration we're usually talking about creases, tears, stains and missing bits. In this case it's just a bit of selective darkening, which is a technique usually associated with retouching.

Oh, that's cheeky! You had me scratching my head and furrowing my brow over it.

Don't need to complicate that much.
The only real problem that you have here is an unbalanced histogram - lots of dark, lots of light and few mid-greys.
A quick fix is to duplicate to a new layer and run Image>Adjustments>Equalize, then fade the opacity back until it looks good (I used 35%).

Here's your image squared up, equalized and (of course) with a nice white border.

Rô

Thanks! I gave that a go, and ended up reducing the opacity a bit more. I wondered about that equalizer thing and what it was best for!


Here we are, with clean border:

[pepperspray]

Originally Posted by Ying

8.5
The whole photo is a bit too dark, especially grandpa's face. You could remove the 2 dark spots from the wooden door too.
And the grass and leaves shouldn't be so sharp, after all the focus should be on the people.
You could try converting the photo to duotone, I think the original is somewhat toned (the grey is warm grey).

Thanks for the feedback, Ying!

I'll work on those concerns in the morning. Right now, I've got bug eyes, and need to back away from the monitor and think about bed.


Cheers!

Petra

[pepperspray]

I think my screen is too light.

I've just had 18 images that I worked on printed out for my dad, and all of them are much darker than they look to me on the screen. So, byRo, even though your settings looked too light for me on screen, my darker settings were too dark in print!

So thanks for setting me straight.