Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Current fundraiser
Recent Posts
[Today at 01:18:46 AM]

[Yesterday at 08:49:30 PM]

[Yesterday at 01:57:57 PM]

[Yesterday at 01:53:35 PM]

[Yesterday at 10:33:03 AM]

[May 20, 2012, 06:22:31 PM]

[May 20, 2012, 03:39:23 PM]

[May 20, 2012, 04:18:56 AM]

[May 19, 2012, 11:24:05 PM]

[May 18, 2012, 10:26:46 PM]
OPR Theme-o-matic

Locations of visitors to this page
Total Members: 1577
New This Month: 6
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Memorial Day

Birthdays:
brianriley75 (37), alluringdeceit (23), Sonya K (38), PaulG (51), Pelican (58)

Events:
There are no events today.
20090502-DSC_0046-4.jpg

Fause

Snow, snow, we got snow

Machenna ReDo

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Retry on Retouch  (Read 1321 times)
klassylady25
Guest
« on: July 05, 2006, 10:31:36 PM »

The photo will never be the original.  In fact we don't know what the original really looked like but I did try to bring it back to life.  I didn't try to bring it back to perfection.  That would be left to interpretation.  I looked at my Momma's pictures for a long time and tried to keep it in the style of the 40's, without overdoing.  Personally I would have smoothed out the backdrop more and made it softer, but.......... didn't.  In talking with another friend, Flora, she said in the end it mattered what I thought. 
Logged
Mark Wilson
OPR Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 63



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2006, 02:19:25 AM »

Hi Klassy,

That's much, much better. I admire your sticking power!  Thumbs Up v.2

-Mark.
Logged

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams 1902-1984.
vhansen
OPR Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2006, 06:32:09 AM »

I don't remember what the first one looked like, so I can't compare the newer version.
Looking at this version, (I know I'm very critical), but my thoughs are that it looks overworked. What I mean is, areas that do not have damage have been reworked to fit with the techniques used to repair the damaged areas.  This usually results in a painterly look and uneven noise distribution (face looks smooth, background is noisy). I would say it's the choice of tool used, (smudge tool?) as I can see you put a lot of work into this.
Here a bit of work on this using the healing brush.


Logged

klassylady25
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2006, 07:53:19 AM »

I don't remember what the first one looked like, so I can't compare the newer version.
Looking at this version, (I know I'm very critical), but my thoughs are that it looks overworked. What I mean is, areas that do not have damage have been reworked to fit with the techniques used to repair the damaged areas.  This usually results in a painterly look and uneven noise distribution (face looks smooth, background is noisy). I would say it's the choice of tool used, (smudge tool?) as I can see you put a lot of work into this.
Here a bit of work on this using the healing brush.

I know it will disappoint you that I didn't use the smudge tool as my primary tool.  I used a lot of healing brush and cloning, the areas that did not have damage... it all had damage when put under the microscope. The coloring is off, there are gaps in the pixels, the hair was a bunch of flat textured ick and btw, most of the photos of this time were hand painted, not .  They were not Kodak or digital...... I know I have two in my house just like this one!! 

Frustrated...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: