next »

Total Members: 2063
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0

Apres Wedding?

Sunset rainbows

Bollingerm

My Greyhound

[battleaxe]

hi people,

here are the before and what I have now.



I need help with the baby's face.   Have to redo the eyes especially.  not sure of their shape.  also the mouth.   okay maybe the whole face!


Thanks

[Mhayes]

Hi Battleaxe,

Your last comment brought a smile to face! My opinion is that this is a non-restore. My 2nd thought would be to make it a B/W or a sepia. The background is shot, so I wouldn't even try to repair it. I would duplicate the background and in between it and the duplicate I would add a blank layer and pick a color from the original and fill--might even do a Gaussian Blur so that is doesn't look stark in contrast to baby. On your top duplicate original layer, do a layer mask to conceal all and then while on the mask paint back with white as your foreground to bring back what good parts there are of the baby. Use a very soft brush so that you do not have hard edges.

The reason I would be leaning to a non-restore is that some parts that are so heavily damaged mean trying to restore with no idea of what they look like. Too bad, but these best thing brought back was Minnie Mouse. You are very brave to attempt this one, but it looks like a really slippery slope.

Margie

[Hannie]

Hi Battleaxe,

I agree with Margie that this photo is a non-restore and I agree that you are a hero for picking this one! 

I always wonder with photos like this if it was the only one the owner had left of this baby, that it may be so important to the the owner to see a little more detail than what is there now.  Even if it means it will never be a mantle piece... I don't know.

In that case I would do the following  I would use the old method of levels in RGB separately, gives a softer finish. 
I can see that there is a vignette, it is off centre a little. 
Then I would very lightly and with variable opacity clone from the good area to repair the bad.  I would not make it too clean and the same goes for Minnie, I would keep her as soft as the rest of the image is. 
The end result may not look print worthy but it is as close to the original as possible.
(This is just a personal take on this restore, it may not be the best way!)

Hannie

partly done

[glennab]

Hi BA

I agree with Hannie that if you can take similar detail to what she's pulled up and very delicately clean what's discernible (I'm amazed at how clearly her nostrils show, yet there's no mouth shape at all).  But if you work your way around the colors with a small clone brush something may pop out.

I couldn't come up with anything using my bag of tricks, and was about to suggest that it be written off as a total non-restore.  But if it happens to be the only photo left of this munchkin, then it would be worth doing as much as you can, keeping it very muted.

Hannie, you have such a wonderfully huge heart.  The realization that this could be the only image left of this child hadn't crossed my mind.  It makes the perspective of what to do considerably different.

Hugs to you both, and good luck.  It'll be interesting to see what you can pull up, BA.  I hope you'll post the finished restoration.

GK

[battleaxe]

thanks for the advice
  did try multiple things including what was said but will redo again
 bought a new noise reduction program will try it on the different channels see if getting rid of the pixelation that way will help .  also try again what was suggested

thanks bunches
 

[Johnboy]

Battleaxe,

I think you are in need of the therapy I spoke of in the reply to Jen.

Any way I am not an artist nor a painter and have I yet taken the time to learn that Photoshop technique. I did download your original and did the levels that someone suggested. Then I started playing with the Healing brush on a separate layer. I do understand spotting and by using the Healing brush with the Align to all layers unchecked I spotted away on the baby's right (viewer left) forehead and then got to playing around on the left cheek (viewer right) and the nose area. I would like to think that I roughly identified the nose but is does look too broad. I also spotted round the left eye as it looked like it might work for a copy to the other side. I did copy and horizontal flip the eye. It may not be positioned right but I think you get the idea. When the image is enlarge to 200% you really have to be careful not to get lost in the pixels. I am not sure if what I have done will be of value. My underling thought would be to perhaps spot back some of the basic head shape and then paint from there as much as you can. It maybe easier to see things once some of the move obvious junk is blended into the background and some of the image. Good luck with this one.

your original


my play time


Johnboy

[battleaxe]

Here is another try,

thinking of putting a knit cap on the baby.    can't really make out the flow of the hair or color.  Will try the hair again, and do the cap as another version .

think the face is better , still have to work on the rest but the face is as good as i can make it I think........



still have to put ears on the little one or put a cap on the area

if you will let me .....oh masters.....     actually i'll add ears to the hair version.....guess what I really want is .....is the face okay?

[Mhayes]

Kudos to you for the great effort on this little one! Unfortunately for me it does not work, because it is so heavily damage and the restore does not look like the same baby and really looks a lot older. The bad part about taking something so damage is when you guess on the features, it may not even come close to looking like the original. I think to do that is a very bad idea!

Also I noticed on the original that the fingers looked curled under and I think you are only seeing four fingers. The thumb would not be showing and a hand would not look correct as shown.

Great effort, but I really think this is too far gone to work.

Margie

P.S. Nice try for the knit cap, but no.  

[Hannie]

Battleaxe, I agree with Margie that the baby looks too different from the original now.  The only solution I can think of is to keep it very light like I suggested with Paul's baby:
http://www.operationphotorescue.org/forum/index.php/topic,2717.msg25346/topicseen.html#new

You deserve kudos for picking such a doozy!

Hannie

[battleaxe]

Well,
  I'm giving up on this one.  Tried to high key it but have to practice that.  Here is my end result going back to you Tess



Am trying a bit longer with the other baby pic but have a nasty feeling I bit off more than I could chew again.  

[Hannie]

Hi Battleaxe,

Baby looks softer but I think you can make it softer still?
I worked from the image I posted above a few days ago.  To make it lighter I used the gamma slider (middle one) in a Levels Adjustment layer and moved it to the left (about 1,65).
Then a Dust and Scratches adjustment layer at 4 pixels and 20 levels but on the full res photo you may need to increase the numbers. 
Burn the eyes, nostrils and lips some and then you can start cleaning up bit by bit, very small areas at the time, doesn't have to be too clean just enough to be pleasing to the eye.
My example below still needs more cleaning but not too much.

Hannie

[lurch]

Hannie, great minds run in the same tracks . . . while you were working this one, I was working the one I posted in "second baby"

[Hannie]

Lurch that's so funny! 
When I had another look at my attempt at this restore I was not so impressed, looks a little messy still!
I guess we need our wonderful painter artist, MaryS, for this one!

Hannie