RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Restoration
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photo Restoration Repairing damaged photos

Beautiful framing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 06-10-2010, 11:04 AM
Florin's Avatar
Florin Florin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Trujillo - Venezuela
Posts: 251
Re: Beautiful framing

Thank you Spotter
Reply With Quote top
  #22  
Old 06-10-2010, 10:51 PM
LQQKER's Avatar
LQQKER LQQKER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Moon, Southwestern Tycho
Posts: 383
Re: Beautiful framing

It's about preserving the original image, nothing more, nothing less, whether digital or a scan. This is what a restoration is. Anything added is "photo art", which is fine, if that is what you want to preserve as far as the memories of your loved ones, which can never be accurate. If by chance you want to truely preserve the original image and the attributes of a look or a smile, this is not in the ball park. Grant you, it's attractive, but it not a remotely accurate restoration. It is only "pretty to look at" and an image created by an individual that knows little about the aforementioned characteristics mentioned previously. I would think a family member would want to remember a loved one as the moment captured, not an interpretation.
Myself, I love to dabble with photo art as well, but when it comes to restorations, if they are not as accurate as humanly possible, you are missing the point.
I have seen few individuals with Flora's talents that could come close to her, as far as preserving the image. Confusing "pretty" with an actual memory makes little to no sense to me. Flora, by far, is one of the "best" I've seen at restoring and to question her talents is simply lending a blind eye to the art of restoring. Florins work is nice, but it "is" photo art, not restoring. This is all I'm saying. Even then, the flaws I mentioned are quite real, not conjured.
It was always my understanding this is a forum to help and stay true to the art of restoring. Only now, what needed to be said was said, otherwise this forum is political not real by any standard.
Feel free to ban me if you wish but this is a matter of principle not opinion.
Reply With Quote top
  #23  
Old 06-11-2010, 01:03 AM
spotter spotter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 96
Re: Beautiful framing

Oh well LQQKER I think that is more about semantics then.
I agree that the restoration label is more loosely used here but then not all of us are Native English Speakers of course. I know there are people who would not be happy with the result but equally there are many who would be and those are the people who will want this work done. I used to draw portraits from photos (hobby ,not for money)and people expect it to look like art not photography, Florin has found a middle way .
REalistically, if someone gave you a splotchy old photo with half the details and no proper colours, you would laugh at the idea of drawing a portrait from it so it is both restoration and Art.
Reply With Quote top
  #24  
Old 06-11-2010, 09:06 AM
Florin's Avatar
Florin Florin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Trujillo - Venezuela
Posts: 251
Re: Beautiful framing

Hi Lqqer. I´m just tired to keep tlking about the same theme.
Here, people use some expression about: "It´s raining over the wet", means keep doing or talking about the same thing but everything stays equal, nothing change, nothing new.
1. I really do not like to keep talking and repeating this nonsense theory about how to restore, how to... bla - bla - bla. Just do the work and show it.
2. I always deliver the 2 versions when I´m changing some ellement, the original and the other one. In this case, I delivered 3 ones, 30x40 cm with the original brown background, 30x40 cm with the vintage floral backg and the 8x10 inch framed. Client choosed the nr 2 and 3.
3. I was ready to say the same Spotter was pointing. This is not a Luovre Museum Mona Lisa, for God sake, is just an old family´s brushpainted canvas and this people wanted a brand new copy. They wanted me to do exactely what I was doing. That´s why they are looking for me and do not charge this kind of job to others retouchers here. I suggest you should informe them that´s a fraud but not a restoration.
4. If you, or other persons have a different way to resolve a job, that´s normal, I understand. But, if you do not manage some specific tools, you´ll be not able to do a decent work. For example, the "suspect" eye lashes must be painted with a thin brush, every hair, one by one. If you cannnot do this you are fried. You cannot retouch the eyes with the healing tool, man, you paint or leave it alone. And so on.
5. There are some difficult level restorations which cannot be solved as a beauty retouch, for instance:
http://i47.tinypic.com/1zcmz40.jpg
The only way to bring this to the life is PAINTING IT and be a skilled guy, if not leave this to someone else or refuse it.

So, I´ll let this here and will not respond anymore nonsense comments about "it´s right.... it is not right... the reguide says..." etc
Just good bye.
Regards
Reply With Quote top
  #25  
Old 06-11-2010, 10:40 PM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
Re: Beautiful framing

lqqker, et al,

is florin's work archival, museum, national archives, etc, restoration. no. no question. but, it is restoration. it just happens to be restoration PLUS photo art, mostly done all in one step. but, it is, at least in part, restoration. is it only restoration? no, of course not. you dont add frames for restoration. we get that. but the bottom line is, when i look at the picture he posted in this thread at the start, i see that woman in that after pic and it looks better than the before. is it perfectly restored? no. is it also photo art? yes. but there's nothing in these forum rules which says it cant be both and, at least from his own report, his clients like his work. that you differ with this, ok, that's not a crime. you are free to speak your peace here providing the rules of etiquette and the forums are followed. so, nobody is planning any bans that i know of. it's ok if you have a different definition of 'restoration' or even that we might have the same definition. all i'm saying is that his work is, at least in part, restorative. ya know? besides, when i think about moving it, where else would i put it? if he was working from a non-damaged photo i'd simply put it in the photo art forum, but because he's bringing something back to life, at least in part, i cant think of any other place where it properly would belong. i also find it odd that when someone changes a complete background or a piece of clothing nobody seems to raise as much as an eyebrow yet florin's work seems to inspire this debate and he's actually staying fairly true to the original... well, if we leave off the fairly showy picture frame. now, if i were the master curator for the smithsonian would i hire him as a restorer? uhm, not without some retraining, because you are right, it's not pure restoration. there has been an additive, the photo art portion. but, will i defend his work here as at least partially restorative and deserving to be here in this forum, yes. and that's ok too. i'm not angry and it's ok to disagree with me. i'm not the restoration police and i know there's been some confusions about what is restoration and what is not in the past. heck, i'm actually more on your side on this. i tend more towards only restoration also and i've preached such in the past, but that doesnt mean that florin's work has no restoration value whatsoever. i think there's room here, as there has been in the past, for restoration plus. i wont particularly practice it. i prefer restoration as restoration, usually. but, i will defend that his work has some restoration value and therefore is ok in being here much the same as when someone else changes out a piece of clothing or a background. that's not pure either, but seems to be tolerated. and like i said before, i've seen some work in the restoration contests that looked more like smudge painting, but folks tended to ooh and ahhh over it.

so, if your point is that his work is not true restoration, i agree. but if your point is that we in this forum can only engage in pure restorations, then i disagree and florin's clients most likely would too.
Reply With Quote top
  #26  
Old 06-14-2010, 10:14 PM
LQQKER's Avatar
LQQKER LQQKER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Moon, Southwestern Tycho
Posts: 383
Re: Beautiful framing

Although I've tried, it's difficult to concede to your point. If a restoration is done "properly", true to the original image, adding a frame, in my opionion is just fine. It's the "subject" that is "always" of upmost importantance. This is the memory you want to preserve. When you start to add things to the subject that don't exist in the original (that is apparent), it "is" an abstraction, made up, not real, nothing like the person you want to remember, not remotely an accurate image (when it could have been). Why would "anyone" want to remember someone in a manner that is not an accurate resemblance of the time? Grant you, there are occasions when you must improvise to complete a tattered image, but "this example" is not one of them. Imagine, if you will, a few generations down the road, and this is the image they look at. Perhaps "another" photo artist decided to do his thing, will grandma still be grandma? This, and only this, is my point.

If people are willing to pay for an image that differs from the original, and cherish it as a heirloom, then they have every right to donate to the Florin foundation, so then, go ahead and make a few bucks at the expense of being accurate. Their children will never know the difference, right? Why not just make a caricature? Think for a moment . . . here is a "restored" image of my grandmother, the way I "wished" she could have looked if she were more attractive. Sounds a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

As previously mentioned, the image I commented on was not a unrestorable image. I was not referring to an image that had to be created with a few parts missing. I also was also not talking about an image that was originally completely painted to begin with. If it was a painting, you work with the painting, if it was an "actual" photograph or a combination of both, it should be as accurate as possible. If not, it "is" only photo art, nothing more.

Craig, nothing personal, I think you are a fine moderator.
Reply With Quote top
  #27  
Old 06-15-2010, 12:07 AM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
Re: Beautiful framing

hi lqqker,

i just now had to go back to florin's original work in the first post here and i'm afraid i've made a bit of a faux pas. the original is not a pure photograph. it's, as florin says, a hybrid, part photo and part brushed in paint. i also had to look at your original critique. when you made this did you realize that the original was partially brushed? i ask because you made mention of the hair and i looked at the original and the hair in the original doesnt really look very realistic to begin with. i'm afraid i'm getting lazy in my old age and not reading these threads as closely as i shld at times. so, i guess what i'm saying is, under the circumstances, given the original, i think he's done a remarkable job of restoration. that AFTER looks like the woman in the BEFORE. so, in this particular case, i have to disagree that this is a case of "nothing like the person you want to remember". in fact, looking at the BEFORE and AFTER, she looks VERY much the same in both.

now, in principle, i do mostly agree with you about restorations. as i've said in the past, that's mostly what i shoot for, also. but, in this particular case, he's taken a brushed photo (colorized?) and done it up in approximately the same style and with very good clarity of features. she looks to be the same woman in both the BEFORE and the AFTER.

look closely at the hair in the original. it's the tipoff. the 'rouge' on the cheek also seems to say 'brushed in'. so, i'm afraid i've been argueing with a misconception or, a misread. i need a nap

anyways, i did understand what you were saying and thanks
Reply With Quote top
  #28  
Old 06-15-2010, 07:37 AM
Florin's Avatar
Florin Florin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Trujillo - Venezuela
Posts: 251
Re: Beautiful framing

Craig (moderator), Mother Theresa Holly Spirit, UN (United Nations org), anyone who could help, please make this guy undersdand that:
1. a hybrid IS NOT A PHOTOGRAPHY, is a brush worked image, so it must be treated as it is and MUST BE RESTORED AS IT WAS DONE. Explain him, please, that´s why the hair texture is like it is and the eye lashes seems to him "suspects" (orig. img. http://rs984tl3.rapidshare.com/files...ginal.jpg.html)
2. i said this before and i´ll repeat it one more time (maybe he needs this): I´M ALWAYS DELIVER A FIRST ORIGINAL VERSION:
http://i47.tinypic.com/33my6op.jpg
(anyone can put up this one over the art one and see that the same, no difference but the background and a little darker levels) and also i´m offering the other (art or however you like to call) AS AN OPTION, CLIENT´S CHOICE etc.
3. Repeat and repeat the same thing just turned to an obstinate and annoying comment.
Reply With Quote top
  #29  
Old 06-15-2010, 08:31 AM
LQQKER's Avatar
LQQKER LQQKER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Moon, Southwestern Tycho
Posts: 383
Re: Beautiful framing

Ok . . .Ok. I had no intention of going this far. Photo art wise, it's great. I think I mentioned that. Restoration of this image is obviously a "modified" redo of the the original version with flaws to enhance what was not originally there. I Never intended to upset anyone. As mentioned before, it's a matter of principle (otherwise I'd just let it pass).

If you change the facial structure in any way, it "is" a different person. Afterall, this is in the photo restoration forum. I only wanted to clairify, what it was I seen. Apparently, there are those that feel beauty is always better than the original . . . not so. I'm not one of those.

If by chance you feel that I'm being unfair, use your photoshop skills and overlap the image, you "will" see the differences. Initially I did not do this, it was only an observation. The retaliation of my comments made this a must for me, so I defend my position.

Please compare the image, there are differences. . .but most certainly, it is pretty to look at, however, not accurate enough to be called a restoration in any sense. Even a restoration with an added touch of photo art (whatever that means).

Sigh . . . if this isn't clear enough, I'll simply quit and move on.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg beautifulframeA.jpg (199.9 KB, 49 views)

Last edited by LQQKER; 06-15-2010 at 10:39 PM. Reason: To further Clarify
Reply With Quote top
  #30  
Old 06-16-2010, 12:26 AM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
Re: Beautiful framing

"... a restoration with an added touch of photo art..." simply means, to me, you do the restore and then you do an enhancement (a retouch or photo art) over and above what is the pure restore. we've seen examples of this in here and in the various restoration contests. a simple example is the replacing of a background to something that wasnt there in the original for the sake of making the image look better. right or wrong, we see it done.

florin simply does this all in one step, so that there is no restoration first and then the enhancement. his process, at least on this one, was done all at the same time. now, that's my interpretation of what i see and what i've seen from him before. i see an AFTER that has been cleaned up from the BEFORE and also enhanced beyond a simple restore. that you see it another way is fine. but grant, please, that there is at least a smidgen of restoration there. did he take it back to the original and only so? no. i do get what you're saying. you're saying that because he didnt bring it back to the original and leave it there, it's not a restoration. that's pretty black and white. i have room for a little gray in that i see an image brought back from damage and made better. i also grant you that your critiques are correct in the differences you've pointed out.

i guess what i'm saying is, i've seen enough restorations and restorations with enhancements that i find the whole question about florin's work being restorative or not a bit moot. he's obviously taken a damaged image and made it better. is it photo art? yep. did he clean it up and make it better? yep. is it a pure restore? nope. shld i move it to some other forum and if so, which would you prefer? it doesnt belong in the photo art forum because of the original. frankly, if he'd posted it in the photo art forum to begin with and had included the original, i'd have moved it here. and maybe that's the thing, i see a before and an after where the before was old/faded/damaged/torn etc and the little organizer in my head goes 'restoration'. had it been a relatively undamaged before then my little organizer probably would have said 'photo art'. so, i guess that's where i'm making the distinction on where to put this piece and will proably continue to operate that way.

i do take your's and flora's point; it's not a pure restore. it's a sort of mix, in my mind, anyways. that you see it otherwise, why ok.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Restoration


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help with Framing maverick911 Software 3 10-19-2009 11:27 AM
Greetings from Beautiful Oregon dvo_photo Salon 1 06-25-2009 12:05 AM
Framing l2jc Non-RetouchPRO Resources 1 01-02-2009 01:08 AM
100 PS Tutorials for Creating Beautiful Art byRo Computer Generated Images 7 09-02-2008 02:16 AM
David Lina- Beautiful Architectural Technique gl1200 Photo Retouching 5 04-03-2008 01:18 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved