Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OK. Let me have it!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OK. Let me have it!

    This was the first picture I picked from my grandfather's negatives last November. I've probably redone it 18 times. Everytime I learned something new in PS I'd go back and rework it.

    Well, its not perfect, never will be. But, I've mailed it out for Mother's Day so I am committed.

    Since then I've decided that this is my new career, so don't hold back on technique, ability, framing, toning, anythings fair. I need to learn. Fact is, it represents the limits of my ability today.

    A couple excuses. This was a 116 negative with a much larger aspect ratio. I really prefer that format but had to make it fit standard 8x10 for cost reasons. I thought the negative was beyond repair so I went with a new background that I built from other negs of his. I didn't have any good woodsy backdrops so I went for the 'studio' backdrop look. I now know enough to save the original but I was hooked on this idea. Whats your opinion?
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Can't understand why you've used a new background, as the one with the picture is easily recoverable.

    Your extraction of the figures has hard edges, and does not sit well into the new BG. Lighting looks to have too much contrast for a picture of this era.

    I've done a very quick job (about 15 mins) on your original, to show how the original can be retained. Obviously it is not a finished piece, and with greater time and care a much better result could be achieved.
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #3
      blue dog,

      ok, the first thing is somewhat a preferences thing but also somewhat a technical thing. too much sepia/reddish cast. the grass is sepai, the background is sepia, his moustache is sepia, the skins are sepia, the barrel is sepia, everything is sepia, even the rocks. it's just too much. it's overwhelming and a distraction due to the amount.

      the backdrop is neither studio nor woodsy. it's too blurred to be studio and too splotchy to be woodsy. so, it just doesnt work for me.

      the bottom of the barrel looks cut and paste.

      his moustache seems to have a ring around it, making it look a bit cut and paste. i can see some of that in the original, so i know it wasnt all your doing. but it shows even more in the second image.

      you kept the shadows... good, but, you cut them off at the rocks where they look like they would have extended up on the rocks a bit based on the original.

      i think it was smart keeping the original grass area.

      the retouching and restoring looks fine.

      mostly, i just have trouble with all the reddish cast and the background. part of that is that i'm just not a big fan of sepia toning, but in this case i think you went overboard with it, which is why i said part a preferences thing and part technical.

      i'll also add that on images like this i prefer to keep the image/character integrity, meaning, i dont like to change backgrounds and so on. i prefer to just restore. but, again, that's a preferences thing.

      craig

      Comment


      • #4
        I have to agree with Gary and Craig about removing the original background. It's history and what it was is what it was and since this was not a studio shot I'd leave the background for historical purposes.

        Hear's the reason... A surveyor friend of mine told me about a case he had to testify to in court over a disputed property line. Turns out that the defendant had an old photo similar to yours that showed surveyor's stakes in the background and had a hand written date on the back that fell within one week of the date on the defendant's deed. Whithout that photo he would have lost a portion of his property to the other guy.

        Comment


        • #5

          I think it is important to keep the original state only because that area of a house or yard may be very memorable to that person, and can make the memory much more enjoyable.

          But i do like the bkgd you placed in there, goes good with the shot.

          I played around with the shot to try some depth of field options to make the ppl in the shot pop a little more from the bkgd., also blur the noise a little and where they were silo'ed. Basically by blurring, and painting with highs and shadows.

          Pretty nice photo though.

          Mike
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #6
            Here is a quick, down and dirty one.
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              Thank you for your criticisms

              I knew this one would be controversial; that's why I picked it. I have a couple that I think most everyone would like. This one though has been my nemisis.

              1. Its pretty clear that the majority don't like the background. Oh, the lawn was built one square foot at a time too. I admitted that I made the mistake of falling in love with an idea. "I now know enough to save the original but I was hooked on this idea." Also, it did NOT turn out the way I invisioned it. KR1156, Thanks for liking the background.

              2. Kraellin: You didn't notice the nice complimentary Navy Blue tone!

              3. Swappy - so happens I was a surveyor in my college days! Oh the stories I could tell. To set you and KR1156 at ease, out of 700+ negatives, this spot in this yard at this house appears dozens of times. History IS intact!

              4. Everyone: I made specific attempts to rid the "hard edges". There must be something I don't know.


              Seriously, Thanks again!
              Last edited by blue dog; 05-09-2006, 04:59 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Oh, Dan Ryan. I do like your far simpler approach (and result). It took you a far more reasonable amount of time than this took me. Again, some grandious idea got the best of me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  umm, navy blue tone?? umm, ok.

                  i did forget one thing here. i do like that you brought the people out more with the crop and resize. if i were going to sacrifice historical accuracy for anything, it would have been that.

                  craig

                  Comment

                  Related Topics

                  Collapse

                  • Ken Rogers
                    A Family Restoration
                    by Ken Rogers
                    This photo was recently discovered by my mother, tucked inside an antique silver photo frame behind another photo. It was shot in 1915 and the infant is my grandmother. I am in the process of restoring it to fill a 4x6 print.

                    In my opinion the original was in great shape, aside from...
                    06-17-2005, 11:13 PM
                  • klassylady25
                    Before and After
                    by klassylady25
                    This is a picture of my father-in-law. He was 18 in this picture. He is of the Ponca-Otoe Missouria tribe. His father was Ponca and Mother was Otoe Missouria. Remembering and capturing his complextion was the hardest part.

                    I prefer black and white, but keep my hand in colorization,...
                    06-18-2006, 10:48 PM
                  • jannetie
                    Cabinet Card - Katrina Flood Damage
                    by jannetie
                    Hi all! This is my first post 'though I've been reading and learning so much from these forums for a while now.
                    I have a problem photograph that a client wants restored, but has budget constraints. The photo is terribly damaged by water and muck from hurricane Katrina. The owner would like it...
                    12-30-2005, 05:42 AM
                  • smiley guy
                    My Uncle's Father from 1922
                    by smiley guy
                    I just finished this restoration for my uncle. Any comments and critiques would be welcome. Thanks for your time.

                    Original is from 1922 and was quite bowed in the frame. It was photographed with a digicam (Pentax istD, I think) at 72 dpi. I upsampled the photo to print quality at 300...
                    01-06-2006, 07:57 AM
                  • mrobertson
                    First major edit, among others
                    by mrobertson
                    Hello all;

                    This is my first effort at serious manipulation, so I thought it would be appropriate for my first post. I'm not new to critiques, though, so don't be gentle. I have just recently started using PSE 3.0, and am blown away by what it can do. I've modified this image based on...
                    11-27-2004, 06:58 PM
                  Working...
                  X