Pitting and discoloration on flesh tones

[dbliss]

I am looking for ideas on how to deal with the pitting on the flesh tones in this picture.
Thanks
dbliss

[garibaldi]

phssst get some coffee

[TommyO]

dbliss,
That one is a difficult one. The only way I have found so far is to blur it heavily on a separate layer, mask, invert mask, then paint back in the softness from the blur as needed. Unfortunately, almost all of the image needs it. So, in the end it is not very useful doing this as you just tend to paint it all in. I'll keep experimenting and checking back to see what others have for ideas.

Other thoughts... maybe smudging, degrundging.

Oh, and of course, a better image may help. The thumbnail has a lot of jpeg artifacts and just can't be upsampled easily. So, results could depend on the image you provide.
Here is what we see in the thumbnail... anything like what you see on the original ?

[0lBaldy]

Started with a good levels correction followed by some drastic noise removal using "Neat Image" then another dose of noise removal using "Polaroid Dust & Scratch removal" set at the light setting.. Then a good dose of the "Paint Soft Skin" action from KentC on a lighten layer over the corrected original then a multiply layer..
Real quick and still very blurry....
BUT, I gave it a shot!!
And as an afterthought.. how about a painted version?

[garibaldi]

The best thing for you to do would be to sit her back down and try taking the picture again, this time start to focus more on the lighting and camera settings. It looks like your white balance is off a little, so maybe have her hold a greta color patch chart and set your exposure with a grey card. Also try cleaning your sensor, it looks like you have a hair or some foreign object up at the upper center of the picture. Also you may want to think about using a light meter to set the camera properly, she looks a little washed out so you may want to close down a stop or so. Try that and post your new pic and Im sure you wont have as many problems.

Another thing I would suggest is that you get some better paper to print it on Ilford makes some really nice stuff as well as Epson. I think what your seeing are the shortcomings when you print a photo on 100 grit sandpaper instead of some of the other current stuff on the market.

[0lBaldy]

Originally Posted by garibaldi

The best thing for you to do would be to sit her back down and try taking the picture again

LOL @ garibaldi..
Looks like a 40s maybe 50s picture.. I doubt if she is available.. But if she is her features may have changed a bit!
Good advise, very helpful... you are right 100 grit is very rough... 800-1000 is much better!

[TommyO]

Originally Posted by garibaldi

The best thing for you to do would be to sit her back down and try taking the picture again...

You sure that was coffee? I think you missed something. This is a very old and damaged picture.

[dbliss]

Olbaldy; The first image in your post looks really good. Since I don't have access to the plug ins that you used, I think I will try Tommyo's suggestion about blurring and smudging on the flesh tones and then repaint a desaturated image. Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll let you know how I make out.

[0lBaldy]

The Demo edition of Neat Image is freeware for non-commercial use. (demo version fully functional but limited to images of 1024 px and less)

Polaroid Dust & Scratch Removal Utility is freeware

[TommyO]

dbliss,
Here is a very quick example of another means to reduce the problem without just blurring. It's still would require a lot of work to continue the restore, but you get the basic idea from this.

This was comprised of a high pass filter, inverted, then lowering the opacity to liking. I then did a very quick levels just to reduce the heavy yellow cast a little.

[0lBaldy]

That is looking GOOD Tommy.. Impressive!

[garibaldi]

Originally Posted by TommyO

You sure that was coffee? I think you missed something. This is a very old and damaged picture.

? um I think you missed something, look at the Exif data on the file, it was taken 11/03/2008 using a Canon 1Ds Mk2 at iso 200, F 4 1/60

[0lBaldy]

Duh Yea,.... Called Copy stand!

Slaps self on forehead... I thought the Kool-Aid tasted good.. Could have had a V-8.. Why am I even bothering.. Geez! Forgive me cruel world I know no better!

[garibaldi]

I know, Im surprised Tommy missed that too!

[TommyO]

Originally Posted by garibaldi

I know, Im surprised Tommy missed that too!

Check you coffee again.... you're missing what OlBaldy is trying to say. What we mean is this image was not scanned, it was photographed in lieu of scanning. The EXIF data does not mean the ladies picture was just taken on 11/08.

[garibaldi]

LOL, No shit! But I made you look! I was being sarcastic, I dont even know if there is any exif on that image, i was making it up

[TommyO]

dbliss,
I was looking at the lower part of the image and noticed the dress may have originally been blue and white.... what do you think ?

garibaldi,
Yep... missed the sarcasm.... tired.

[garibaldi]

Originally Posted by TommyO

Yep... missed the sarcasm.... tired.

Probably cuz your spending all your time retouching other peoples photos for free! LOL

[dbliss]

I guess I am missing somehere. These image was scanned, I did it myself. TommyO, as far as the color is concerned, it could have been blue, but my best guess now is that it is green. The person who gave me the image claims it was green.

dbliss

[byRo]

Originally Posted by TommyO

.... reduce the problem without just blurring. .........
This was comprised of a high pass filter, inverted, ....

Funny, the way I learned, an inverted high-pass filter is pretty much the same thing as blurring.

However, TommyO is right that the only way here is to blur. Ordinary noise elimination stuff just won't fix this without destroying too much useful information.

A masked blur will get you some of the way, but what you need here is a bit of smudge painting. The idea is the same - to blur - but you get complete control over what gets blurred where.

Did some Selective Colour" correction, but I didn't want to tackle the dress at this time of night.

Rô

[klassylady25]

A lot of fun but a great many steps.

* I duplicated the Background Layer twice.
* On the first duplicate I run Neat Image (defaul settings).
* On the second duplicate (on top) I run Gaussian Blur, added some noise and adjusted its Opacity. I, then, added a Layer Mask and, with a soft black brush, I painted over eyes, nose and mouth to uncover those sharper features from the underlying 'Neat Image' Layer.
* Merged Visible.
* Created a Levels Adjustment Layer to improve contrast.
* Created a Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layer (colorize option checked) to give a light tint to the picture.
* Added a little Noise + Soft Gaussian Blur (radius = 0.3-5).
* Created a New empty Layer > Blending Overlay and with a soft black/white Brush (Opacity 10-20%) I painted over areas I wanted to emphisize/highlight.
* I further enhanced the contrast using Unsharp Mask (Amount>20%, Radius>50, Threshold>0).


Played with the color and the noise to get it this far. Cleaned up the background and here is the result after about 20 minutes.

[Kraellin]

noise removal,

median filter

color balance adjustment layer

smudging/cloning

hue/sat adjustment layer

a little bit of clarify

brightness/contrast adjustment layer

[dbliss]

ByRo:
That is an incredible job especially on the face. I have been working for hours and can't achieve what you have. Did you do that with the smudge tool?
dbliss

[byRo]

Originally Posted by dbliss

ByRo:... Did you do that with the smudge tool?

Yes. Some folks regard this as "cheating" but as I always say, it's the client who decides. People around here seem to prefer "looks like new" to "historically accurate".
However I will always do my smudging with the original image on a layer that I can turn on and off to make sure I'm not distorting any important details.

Rô