Beautiful framing

[Florin]

Hello. Sometimes, just restore a picture is not enough. Add something more could improve the general state.
In this case, I had a job with an old hybrid image, some half-photo, half-brush-retouched art. This is an item we´ve discussed before.
I made some changes when the restoration work was done:
1. change the flat background with a vintage floral layer. I love this look, maybe I´m some kind of a retro-addict and in many cases I´m using the vintage textures for the background.
2. I choosed one of the "Luscious Heirloom Frames" models, which make a very nice couple with the dark red floral bckg. I adjusted a little the centered oval space, extending it a little more with an oval selection. The original frame comes as a layer, just the golden an green image, so I used again the red vintage texture to make an 8x10 inch background.
This is the result:
http://i49.tinypic.com/auw57m.jpg

I hope you´ll like this.

Cheers

[Cupcake]

Just lovely!!!

[Florin]

Thank you Cupcake.

[digitalrose]

This is just beautiful great work!!!!

[Kraellin]

nice work, florin and i love the antique frame

[LQQKER]

Well . . . It's pretty . . . . I apparently see things quite differently than the other reviewers. To me, the hairline is very unnatural. It looks nothing like a real hair line, nor does the hair, but to each their own. I might also add that the chin shadow has me confused, it seems to give a slight double chin look, which doesn't exist in the original. Her left side of her face seems to have an absence of contour, giving a flat appearance. and her left earing has a similar color as the skin tone. The eye lashes are also suspect, more of a blend as the hair line. I also find the subjects right shoulder to have a halo effect. The skin inside the necklace is a different tone than the skin on the "outside" of the necklace. Afterall, this is a restoration right?

I do agree that the frame "adds" to the subject, however, to me, it is the subject that matters. All said and done, this is just "my" opinion, so I trust I won't be tarred and feathered.

[Florin]

First of all, thank you all for answer the post.
Second, everything in this world looks nice or does not depending of the people´s taste. So, everyone´s opinion is welcome.
Third, I think that our friend LQQKER should made the distinction between a photography and a brushwork retouched image, a hybrid work but not a photo. Of course the hair texture is unnatural, it must be the same as it is in the client´s original image:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2ufsm15.jpg
People is paying me to have a new restored copy of the same picture but not to replace the original elements. If you don´t like the hair drawing, you should tell this to the painter, I´m only the retoucher. The same comment about the eye lashes. Maybe seems some "suspect" for you but please see the originals, are the same.
So, I thank you so much for your opinions and be sure I´ll always respect the other people comments, good or bad, they are welcome. I´m not a perfect guy, nobody is, so we always have to listen and accept the others´. Maybe the final result have some details, that´s ok. All the jobs always have some details, that´s natural.
Here I have a "bonus" image about how to restore some hair texture:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2e1al91.jpg
But, this is so different. This is a real (damaged) photo and I had to paint a real hair texture.
Cheers

[LloydM]

-- very nice work, Florin .. ..

[Florin]

Thank you Lloyd
"- Lloyd - -< I cannot give you the formula for success; But I can give you the formula for failure: TRY to please everyone..!"
So true, hahahaha
This is great, man. Really.

[Flora]

I think LQQKER hit the nail on the head here..

Originally Posted by LQQKER

Well .... Afterall, this is a restoration right? ....

.... not according to the Restoration Ethics guidelines

Florin you are very talented and, personally, I think your work is excellent, but nothing I have seen of your work here could be called a 'restoration' ... at least according to the ethics guidelines.

That said ... as long as the customer is happy .... anything goes ...

[Florin]

Hello
Dear Flora, just comment and criticize about something is so easy but showing a different vision of the job is so different. I think the best way to support an affirmation is displaying a better or newer version, as it should be according to the "Restoration Ethics Guidelines", right? Comparison is the best way to evidence who is wrong or not. I´m so sure you have not only a very critical eye but a lot of advanced skilness wich will allow you to show us how should be finished this kind of work "according to the REG". I´m really so curious about; I never thought before that I was doing something which is out of the rules.
Here you have the high resolution original file:
http://rs984tl3.rapidshare.com/files...ginal.jpg.html
Please take 2 minutes to download it and start doing the job whenever you´ll have the time and the pleasure to accomplish with the new version.
I´m not in the hurry, take your time. This is not a challenge, please do not missunderstand me. Take it as a simple manner to convince me that your affirmation is right and I was going in a wrong way.
Have my best regards,
Florin

[Flora]

Dear Florin,

I never thought that ...

Originally Posted by Flora

Florin you are very talented and, personally, I think your work is excellent.....

...could be seen as 'criticizing' .... I was simply disagreeing about defining your work as 'restorations' and explaining why by posting the link to the Restoration Ethics Guidelines.

As for 'putting my money where my mouth is' ... well, I've been a member here since 2002 and I've done exactly that over and over in both fields: Restoration and Retouching ...

In the past, software and techniques weren't as advanced as they are today ... but please, take some time to go through my posts, challenges and tutorials ... your curiosity might be satisfied.

One last thing, mine was simply an opinion, based on the affirmations found on the linked site, and as for being 'right or wrong' I finish repeating the last sentence in my previous post..

Originally Posted by Flora

... as long as the customer is happy .... anything goes ...

[Florin]

Well, Flora, I´m so surprised that since 2002 up to the present day you still do not see or make the difference between a photography and a brush worked (painted) image. ¿Are they the same thing for you?
This job was one more I did in a long row of this kind of restorations or however you´d name it. Can have some small details in the final art, they always are, but this is not the point. If you should look close the original file I´ve been uploading, you should see this, we have here something different but not a photography. This is the point. I can´t make a photography restore over a painting. I must restore the painting as it is, like it or not.
So, is this a restoration or what?
About the software, let me say that is not relevant for me. This work could be done with Photoshop 6 if you want. Same tools, same workflow. It´s about skilness, that´s all.
I hope the original file will help you understand better what´s about all this.
Have my best regards and a nice day,
Florin

[Flora]

Originally Posted by Florin

Well, Flora, I´m so surprised that since 2002 up to the present day you still do not see or make the difference between a photography and a brush worked (painted) image...

.... I do know and see the difference .... and it might come as a disappointment to you but I did know and see it even before joining RetouchPRO.

Originally Posted by Florin

This is the point. I can´t make a photography restore over a painting. I must restore the painting as it is, like it or not.

... I have never talked about "photography restore over a painting" I talked about the definition of restore/restoration and, actually, I didn't refer to the picture posted here specifically, but, more generally, to what I've seen of your work here.

Surely being as informed as you are you know that you can restore photographs, paintings, and even originally brushed/painted images ...

just as you can retouch photographs, paintings, and even originally brushed/painted images

or create a personal/artistic version of photographs, paintings,
and even originally brushed/painted images.

The difference between restoration and the other manipulations/elaborations is to be found in the Guidelines ... and this is my point.

Originally Posted by Florin

So, is this a restoration or what?

... I am surprised you ask ... definitely not in my opinion and not for the Restoration Ethics.

Originally Posted by Florin

I hope the original file will help you understand better what´s about all this.

... well, Florin, maybe re-reading the points listed in the site linked above and my previous posts will help you understand what this is all about.

A nice day to you too...

[Florin]

I belive it´s time to let this here and don´t keep bothering the other people with our discussion. This could take a whole year and you and me keep argueing over the theme.
Anything we are doing here is a REAL restoration, is just a virtual and personal version of the original image, made in a computer.
The real restoration is the one when you or me should work directly with the object, could be furniture, clothes, paintings or photos. Work with the proper tools and rebuilt, remake, repair the physical damages in situ, with our hands. But we are doing something different, we create a NEW IMAGE and it´s so natural that different people have different ways and skillness levels to accomplish such a job. How should you re-make or call it restore a man´s picture with the half of his face missing? Ofcourse I agree with you when you say that´s "create a personal/artistic version of photographs, paintings and even originally brushed/painted images". Sometimes I´ve received only pieces of an image and I was forced to "guess" how the real guy looked and this way restore/remake/rebuilt it. I also agree with you that my technique must be enough distinct but the results are too.
Anyway, I think that the skilness comes with the years, the personal "touch" too and everyone is free to work as he likes. With or without the REG rules. Remember that "an image worth more than 1000 words". This is what the clients want, a good new image as close as possible to the older one. They do not know about the REG. Are they whrong?
So, Flora, you are right, I am right and this story has a happy end.
Cheers

[Kraellin]

to all,

ah, i see we're back to the same point i raised when you first arrived here, is it a restoration or is it photo art/retouching, or something else. and i also see some taking exception to it being called a restoration. interesting. i would like to remind everyone that there was a form of photo restoration, before the digital age, that involved painting a reproduction of a damaged/faded photograph. that was, and still is, a form of restoration. thus, florin's work DOES fall into the restoration category. he is restoring it from something not so good, to something better. basically, if i understand his previous posts, he is essentially clone painting, for the most part. and, if nothing else, when i look at his before and after, i see something that looks a lot better than the before. i would also point out that quite a number of folks here in this forum and in some of the contests, do the same thing, only usually on a smaller scale. when someone changes a background to enhance things from the original, that's not truly restoring in the sense of an archivist restoration. yet, i've also seen folks ooh and ahh over that same 'restoration' in restoration contests. and no, i'm not talking about anyone here in this discussion in particular. i've often preached the 'pure' restoration and do, myself, prefer that method. however, florin's work is a restoration in that he is restoring but then also goes that extra mile of enhancing. so, it is a restoration, but it's also a bit more than that.

other than lqqker's comments on the workmanship, which are fine, i dont quite see the point to the rest of this. and florin, a 'real restoration' might well be working ONLY with the original, but we all know that we're working with digital copies here, so let's stay on point. i would also point out that there seem to be some language barrier issues here, so stay tolerant, folks. frankly, i got a bit lost in some of this due to language, too.

and, at least we all agree that the if the client likes it, then we dont much care what it's called

oh, and aartist, get in line... most of us have crushes on flora

[Florin]

100% agree. i also belive it´s time to stop this forever-nonsense discussion.
let´s close the post, whatever had to be said was said. by-by post.
thank you all,
florin

[klassylady25]

I for one, would like to see what Flora would do. That would give this discussion something to compare.

[Florin]

Hi Candice.
What a beautiful work on http://www.flickr.com/photos/clearimage/... Congratulations!
About the post, I think it´s better to let him dead.
Thank you and keep on working as you are doing it now. Very nice.
Regards

[spotter]

I think it looks great. I am guessing most people who ask Florin to restore their pictures, have seen his style and that is what they are hoping their pictures will look like when he has finished.
Excellent finished result.

[Florin]

Thank you Spotter

[LQQKER]

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.

[spotter]

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.

[Florin]

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

[Kraellin]

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.

[LQQKER]

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.

[Kraellin]

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

[Florin]

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.

[LQQKER]

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.

[Kraellin]

"... 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.