Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hi Everyone!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    phili1
    Senior Member

  • phili1
    replied
    Thanks Jeanie. I cant see it on my screen but I am in the process of learning to make hair, that will help me touch up. I left the eyebrows alone but in my final version I made the bigger and colored her lips red and also recolored her skin. Thanks for the feed back.

    Leave a comment:

  • pierresplace
    Member

  • pierresplace
    replied
    Thank you very much Barbie

    I'm going to try that too. Regards!

    Leave a comment:

  • Barbie Hocking
    Junior Member

  • Barbie Hocking
    replied
    I set dodge to "shadows" and ranged between 6% to 22% exposure. Burn was set to "highlights" and had about the same exposure range. The dodged areas tends to have a bluish tint. To remove the tint, I mask a section, magic wand the blue, apply curves of more yellow and red, and reduce the saturation.

    The marketing piece looks very impressive:>)

    Leave a comment:

  • pierresplace
    Member

  • pierresplace
    replied
    Barbie & Phil

    That's a really nice job Barbie! I hardly ever use D&B tho, can you share some of your settings with me?

    Thanks Phil, I'm just going nuts this weekend.

    PS. I made a marketing piece that I'm going to print out as a 4 x 6 photo. Will you folks please comment on it? It's at
    http://www.geocities.com/photoredux/p5.html Thanks!

    Leave a comment:

  • phili1
    Senior Member

  • phili1
    replied
    Pieere you didn't confuse us, you just lit a match on a bunch of artist and wanna bees. We respect your efforts and acomplisments, you did a great job. Think of us like bees to honey, when we smell it we go after it with passion, at least for me. I am still in a learning curve, so I take any opertunity to polish my skills and your submission was a good one to develop it on. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:

  • Barbie Hocking
    Junior Member

  • Barbie Hocking
    replied
    Here's one more sample. I dodged and burned and cloned to get rid of the cracks.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

  • pierresplace
    Member

  • pierresplace
    replied
    Hi again

    Gosh, I think I confused matters with all of these versions and replies. The upload named "lady" was "before I came to this thread. It was done with almost every tool except the filters. What knocked me over a bit was that version was about double the size and showed the distressing portions to me but now that it was reduced in size it doesn't look half bad to me anymore. Now that isn't skill accomplishing that, it's more of an illusion I feel. That can be significant in the future with other samples. All in all I do remain appreciative and did learn from this. Thank you all!

    Leave a comment:

  • pierresplace
    Member

  • pierresplace
    replied
    A real quick note

    Just wanted to upload this real quick. See you later all!
    pierresplace
    Member
    Last edited by pierresplace; 08-12-2007, 01:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • jeaniesa
    Senior Member

  • jeaniesa
    replied
    Phili,

    I think your version looks pretty good. The thing that stands out for me is her eyebrows which seem almost "sparkly" compared the softeness of the rest of the image. Also, there is a faint, but visible to me, diagonal line going from upper right to lower left through her hair and forehead which is distracting to me. Overall though, I think you did a good job smoothing out the "blotchiness" of your previous version - and keeping the eyes, nose and mouth true to the original.

    Jeanie

    Leave a comment:

  • jeaniesa
    Senior Member

  • jeaniesa
    replied
    Pierre,
    You learned the same lesson I did - when an original print has micro cracks all over it, trying to enlarge it is nearly impossible! Just how big did your client want the restored image? I usually recommend that clients don't enlarge more than 2x the original, whether there are cracks or not. I have done more than that, but the results look really "soft" and I warn the customer about that beforehand.

    I had a 3.5x3.5" color photo from the mid-70's that had cracks all over it. Not only where there cracks, but the picture itself was not particularly in focus. I tried to enlarge the image to 5x7, but was very unhappy with the results. So, I told the client I could either give them a much-improved print the same size as the original and that's it. This was after spending hours and hours on the photo. (Yes, I can easily believe that you've spent 20 hours on this photo!!) But, I wasn't willing to present them with a final product that I wasn't happy with - and that they (being quite picky themselves) would most likely not be happy with either. Luckily, the client agreed to a restored version of the original size.

    One thing I've learned is to always look at an image through a loupe (if I don't have my scanner available) before giving an estimate. The loupe can pick up cracks, dust, mold, etc. that is not easily seen with the naked eye - and is even more useful if the client is requesting that the picture be enlarged. As you've learned, enlarging an picture also enlarges all of the defects!!

    As far as sizing images to 100K for uploading here, I'm the moderator who gave you that info. I'm also the person who wrote the (long) tip that CJ pointed you to. I wrote it in an attempt to explain all of the factors that affect image size, because in reality, it's a bit confusing - especially when you want to upload the largest and best quality image you can that is under the 100K size limit. (From what I can tell, the images you uploaded were around 30K, so you still have plenty of leeway to experiment with uploading. If you'd like to experiment with uploading various file sizes, you can do so in the Testing forum.)

    In any case, from what I can see, you've done a great job with this project. If it were me, I'd reduce the final output size to wallet though - if you have that option.

    Jeanie

    Leave a comment:

  • phili1
    Senior Member

  • phili1
    replied
    PIeere I know this is your thread but as long as you got me started I am looking for comments. Your end results is different then what I am trying to develop.

    So CJ & Jeaniesa I took my previous post CJ HIstory brush which worked great and did some air brushing trying to put some more life in to the face. I used the right side coloration and put it on the left side and forehead areas , useing airbrush oil heavy brush, darkened under the nose, chin and neck area. I tried to smooth it out so ther was no blotching. It looks good to me but my eyes are not what sells. What do you guys think.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

  • phili1
    Senior Member

  • phili1
    replied
    It is a tough one and you did a great job. As far as obsessive your taking to the right person. The one thing I have found with jobs such as these is that it is hard to keep the person looking like them. I keep trying to acheive that. When I used Decrack it changed the features but when I used CJ method it kept in the ball park.

    Any way keep being that way your customers will love it.

    Leave a comment:

  • pierresplace
    Member

  • pierresplace
    replied
    Hi Everyone

    I really appreciate all of this feedback. I don't want anyone to feel I didn't read their posts so I'll try to recap in this one reply. OK on the "save for web" format. I just wasn't familiar with your requirements and went with what I was told by the moderator. This version I uploaded last, "lady.jpg" was not "decracked" at all. This was my own work before I posted the challenge. I accomplished that result with the tools I mentioned in a very much earlier post in this thread. One thing I did notice when I uploaded that version was that by reducing the image size the appearance that I wasn't happy with seemed to lessen. What I mean is that when I retouch I have the images so "zoomed" to get all the problems eliminated that I guess I obsess a bit. As an aside, the original photo I was given measured about one inch square and was a passport photo taken in 1955. The cracks all became visible with the enlargement. What a learning experience this was. I suppose in summary, what I want is for the face to have the proper highlights but the original was stained. The stains were all around the lower half of the face and in the background around same. This created a look similar to "lighting" (or shadows) and the owner was more obsessive than I was. Perhaps the solution is in reducing the size to "wallet" size and just getting this over and done with. Would you folks believe it if I told you that I have tweaked this for about 20 hours so far? But, when I do get it to where I want it I'll have a centerpiece for my sample book. A comment I received in my gallery with the two "officers" was aren't I happy the cracks weren't on the face? YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:

  • jeaniesa
    Senior Member

  • jeaniesa
    replied
    Pierre,
    When you say that you're concerned about the lighting in the face, is your concern that it looks "flat"? I.e., there isn't really any shadow areas? The original photo looks like the light source came from the front, so there isn't much shadow there to begin with. However, if you were to select just the face and do an S-curve curves adjustment, that may increase the contrast enough for you to be happier with it. That will have the effect of darkening what shadows there are and lightening the highlights. My attachment is just a quick stab at this picture and could use a bit more work/thought, but it should give you an idea for what I'm talking about.
    Jeanie
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

  • jeaniesa
    Senior Member

  • jeaniesa
    replied
    Pierre,

    It looks like you've done a great job with the cracks!

    It also looks like there is some uneven yellow staining on the photo. The first thing I would do is look at the individual channels to see if one has more (or less) staining than the others. Then, use the channel mixer to turn the image to grayscale, eliminating the channel(s) with the most staining, but still with the detail you want in the image. If you want the sepia tone back afterwards, you can simply add that back. But, I would try to get rid of the uneven staining first. Please let me know if you need more detail on what I just tried to explain.

    Jeanie

    Leave a comment:

Related Topics

Collapse

Working...
X