Washed Out, In Front of Window Image

[rnbluvva]

Well here is yet another image from a cell phone! This one has awful lighting. The light from the window is destroying so much detail.

I tried to bring back some detail with a curves AL, but it really darkened the mother's face.

Any tips on how I can get this more tonal without muddying up the features? Also, how would I restore detail?

I am posting the original and the curves adjusted one.

[Legacy~Art]

Hey how is it every time you add a post yours is huge, i just noticed that in another thread, your posting is larger are you using html or something like that, or is it cos your adding music?

[rnbluvva]

Originally Posted by Legacy~Art

Hey how is it every time you add a post yours is huge, i just noticed that in another thread, your posting is larger are you using html or something like that, or is it cos your adding music?

Hey Legacy~Art,

I have no idea. My settings are just the normal RTP ones. I don't use HTML and I created my signature in the profile signature creator. There is no HTML coding, just the UBB link.

I don't see the post as big from here. Is it the text you are talking about or something else? What browser are you using? I am using Mozilla Firefox. Let me check it in IE and see if there is something going on.

I am sure it has nothing to do with my signature tho.

It's a mystery!

[Legacy~Art]

No Nat its actually you thats stretching the boxes you are posting due to this

Location: My Suitcase Mostly... but sometimes Maryland, sometimes Toronto, ON and sometimes Vancouver, BC!

You are posting your location which is stretching the boxes you are posting, its funny, but its not my pc, that is doing it, your description of your location is!

Have a nice day

Ella

[rnbluvva]

OMG I am so sorry! I will fix that right away! Thanks for telling me.

[Legacy~Art]

Woooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooo we now have a fixed board!!!

Got to say girl you have an amazing singing voice!

[leuallen]

Try USM (unsharp mask) with amount about 25 and radius at max. This reduces the hazyness. Then play with curves.

Larry

[rnbluvva]

Larry,

Thanks a million for the tip. I am going to try that tonight! Wish me luck!

[philbach]

I tried Image adjustment and neat image in photoshop CS2. Its still leaves a lot to be desired though.

[rnbluvva]

Phil,

Yeah. I think this is a real toughie. I am thinking that there may not be much that can be done because the image quality is so poor to begin with and then the light washing out a lot of the image does not help! LOL

But I am gonna give it a shot tonight.

[rnbluvva]

OK.. I tried the USM approach with a Levels AL and a pass thru Neat Image with very soft settings. Using default NI settings caused the whole thing to look globby!

I wonder if there is another approach or if this is as good as it is going to get because there is really no data in the extreemely black and white regions of the image.

I tried to do Katrin Eismann's fill flash technique, but that did not work to improve the image.

Tough one!

I'm thinking I should maybe work with what I have here and make this look kind of saintly and work the hazy effects already present into the image. What do you think?

[Duv]

Nice job Nat! I came up with a lighter version but not as good as yours. To simplify the image, you might want to consider cloning out some of the background. I'm not sure it adds anything leaving it in.

Cheers

Dave

[rnbluvva]

Originally Posted by Duv

Nice job Nat! I came up with a lighter version but not as good as yours. To simplify the image, you might want to consider cloning out some of the background. I'm not sure it adds anything leaving it in.

Cheers

Dave

Hi Duv! Hope all is groovy in your world

Thanks! Gosh this is a really hard one! I think I am going to clone out some of the background for sure.

I tried fiddling with a fresh copy using the Shadow/Highlight feature. I posted it in another thread:
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/att...chmentid=26925
It does give back some detail, but there are these strange artifacts that are now popping up. Some serious pixelation or something. I am not sure what way to go now.

The settings I used for the Shadow/Highlight pass were:
SH Values are as follows:
SHADOWS
Amount: 60%
Tonal Width: 50%
Radius: 30%

HIGHLIGHT
Amount: 42%
Tonal Width: 90%
Radius: 100%

ADJUSTMENTS
Color Correction: +20
Midtone Contrast: 0
Black Clip: 0.01%
White Clip: 0.01%

I think with this image it's sort of the lesser of two evils. More detail means more artifacts, less detail means more fuzz/haze.

LOL

[Duv]

Ya, this is what I ended up with after playin with Highlight/Shadows, Neat Image and some LAB curves..You're right. It all seems to be about compromise. And thanks, I'm groovin along just fine!

Cheers

Dave

[rnbluvva]

Good try Dave!

My eyes are bugging out with this one for real! I am thinking that I am gonna go for less artifact, more haze and try to make it work to my advantage.

Highlight/Shadow brings up too many artifacts for my liking and getting them gone with Neat Image makes the Mum look like half her head belongs to an alien.

It's just not gonna get sharp or 'pretty' regardless of what I do to it I think.

Glad yer groovin!

[bart_hickman]

In PSPX, the first thing I actually did was run the generic "one step photo fix v9" which made the colors look good. Then I ran the NR tool--using carefully chosen sample points.

To get the highlights and shadows somewhat less extreme I put a negative greyscale image on an overlay layer and adjusted the opacity of the negative image to taste.

Then I made some gradients on a burning layer to remove the haze around her head. The new thing I tried was to use the mesh warp (I think this is called liquid in PS) to custom fit the gradient to the edge of her face. On a second burning layer I did a very slight amount of brushing to fix up the center of her head.

Finished up with the "automatic saturation enhancer".

The one step photo fix and automatic saturation enhancer tools just adjust saturation, contrast, sharpness, and color balance, etc.. using some preset algorithm that happens to work for most not-too-critical situations.

Bart

[rnbluvva]

Bart,

Looks good. I think the loss of detail at the woman's right side, upper head is going to be an inevitability no matter what process is used. That is what I am finding.

I did a negative greyscale image inverted in overlay mode and that did pop up some detail, tho as you found, the opacity had to be lowered.

Very interesting approach using the gradient and mesh. I will have to play with that.

Excellent approaches and I thank you for having a go at it.

[rnbluvva]

Well after a bunch of hours trying to work this image, I've posted my results below. This was the hardest thing I have attempted yet!

[Gary Richardson]

Hi RNB,

Gonna be hard to get anything good from this, as the original is such low resolution.

But had a go anyway.

Ran Image through Neat Image (reduced auto settings which were too harsh).

Duped layer, desaturated it, then inverted, set blend mode to Soft light, and reduced layer opacity to about 40%.

New levels adj layer, and brought white output slider in to reduce top end burn out a little.

Merged layers, then applied USM to sharpen a little.

[Cassidy]

As this seemed quite the challenge, I thought I'd have a go at it. I duplicated the layer and then applied it in screen blending mode. I then did a copy merged layer and adjusted using shadow highlights. As it seemed to pronounce artifacts, I went to the green channel and did a little smoothing with smudge. Adjusted the levels slightly also.

[Legacy~Art]

I did this in psp with the unlimited plugins.

I also reduced the picture to 72dpi and also as its a camera picture and the pixels are all stretched out i reduced the picture i ended up with from 8 inch wide to 4 inch wide.

Not bad for someone who does not retouch photos eh? I prefer to paint or sketch, but this was interesting thank you!

[Legacy~Art]

Do you have anymore pictures?

[CJ Swartz]

Thought I'd have a go at this one also -- I worked in LAB a bit with curves, and also in CMYK using calculations to add (hopefully) some density to a couple of the channels. Then switched back to RGB and used Selective Color to reduce the cyan cast in the white background and the magenta in the skin color. Ran Noiseware to reduce some of the noise (still practicing with settings here - not sure I chose well ), did some dodge/burn on an overlay layer. Did some other things also -- went back and forth with settings, trying to find a way to help.

I lightened and softened the background since it didn't add much sense of place, but thought it might surround the pair in a glowing effect that could be thought appropriate...

[rnbluvva]

Gary: Yeah it is a real challenge with this being a low res, cell phone image. It's the only images the family has of the child tho, and I just had to go with what's there.... or not there, in this case! It's a good challenge tho.

Cassidy: I found that I got huge, ugly artifacts using Shadow/Highlight, as you found. But never thought to go to channels to smooth. That is an interesting method I will have to keep in mind next time.

Legacy~Art: Great go at it! I see you gave it a lot more light. I think it's great. I do have 2 more images besides this one. If you want them, I can email them to you. I believe your email address is on your site, so let me know if you want me to send them over.

CJ Swartz: It looks lovely CJ. Great idea going to LAB. I did that with another one from this series of images and that worked well, but stuck to Selective Color and Curves for this one. But I think either way works.

I'd love to find out how to work with channels to reduce noise and artifacts more. Does anyone know of any good tutorials that deal with this?

Really superb work everyone.

[ray12]

Heres a quick version - using some light rays to take advantage of the white light situation. Maybe an artistic treatment could be found that would mask some of the technical difficulties we are having.

These cell phone images are quite the challenge.

First cell phone company to come out with a flash would have my vote!

Heard there is a cel phone out there at 5 mega pixels. Thats starting to go in the right direction. This image sems to be 640x480. Not much color depth.

Bart loved your method and result.

GREAT MUSIC - Nice Job on the songs. Is that you in the music and picture?

Ray12

[rnbluvva]

Originally Posted by ray12

Heres a quick version - using some light rays to take advantage of the white light situation. Maybe an artistic treatment could be found that would mask some of the technical difficulties we are having.

These cell phone images are quite the challenge.

First cell phone company to come out with a flash would have my vote!

Heard there is a cel phone out there at 5 mega pixels. Thats starting to go in the right direction. This image sems to be 640x480. Not much color depth.

GREAT MUSIC - Nice Job on the songs. Is that you in the music and picture?

Ray12

Ray,

Great idea to use the shafts of light in the image. Very pretty! Yes I agree these cell phone images are really difficult to work with for sure. A flash would be a VERY smart idea to add on if it isn't bulky etc. I think you could put a small one in no problem. I bet it will happen soon!

And yeah, that's me in the pic and singing/writing the songs.

Great job on the image!

[ray12]

How do you get the music to stream?

Im listening to song 6 already and they seem to keep on coming. I occasionally see a download screen in between.

You did a great job on the music - very professional and well written and produced.

[rnbluvva]

Ray,

Just PMed ya about the streaming audio etc.