next »

Total Members: 1579
New This Month: 8
New This Week: 2
New Today: 0

Family Portrait

margie_dave_raoul_jan.jpg

Wedding

Milo

[Hannie]

Hi,

I have been staring at this restore for over a week now and I can safely say: I'm stuck!

Rather than just giving up completely I am going to ask all of you to help me out here.
I have done levels and curves and a lot of damage repair but I fell that everything I'm doing now makes it look worse.
The images below are full size and res so if you feel an irresistible urge to work this photo, please go ahead!

Hannie

[Mhayes]

Hannie, I think you have done a fantastic job so far! This photo was the most damaged one we received from the owner. It will be great to have this as a group project.

The one thing that caught my eye from the beginning was the difference in skin coloring on the child's chin. I couldn't tell if this was damage, lighting, or was normal.

Margie

[Hannie]

That's right Margie, I can't tell which part of her face is damaged and which part is as it should be.
I'm leaning toward the lower part being the good skin color and brightness but that would mean having to change the rest of her face to match that color.
I guess when all the damage in her face is repaired it could be dodged and burned with a soft Light 50% gray layer.

The part that puzzles me the most is her right lower side, what is where and what are the outlines of the area where she sits.

And then there is that awful print on the jamies, I just can't find a good patch to clone from.



Hannie

[Mhayes]

Hannie, I would go with the coloring of the rest of the face. It is a photo of her daughter and to me would look more natural with the darker.

As to the jamies, that is going to be the white and borrowing from other areas. You really have done the major part of this already.

Margie

[Bambi]

I agree with Margie. You're done a beautiful job so far with the face and that's the most important part. After you finish the face, I'd finish the background spots. Then, at least it seems almost done. For the pajamas, like Margie said, find the missing patterns and place them, then fix the whites. Leave the leg on our left for last. You might be able to use the repaired part of the body to fix that leg.

This is beyond hard, but you have such a delicate touch on photos. I'm in awe.

Bambi

[GP]

Hi Hannie,

I don't know if my miserly attempts of color correction will help you with this photo. ( Boy, you really like to punished yourself for mucking-up and using the spotting machine before sending pictures out to us    )

I used a levels adjustment on each channel first and moved the lightness sliders to the left as shown. I added a curves adjustment, using the eye droppers: white - on her pj chest area, gray - close to her right hand, black - on her shoe (I circled the spots in red). I pulled the lines down a bit to soften the brightness.

I think this portrait is an example on lighting done badly. The true shade of her face lies somewhere between her chin and the rest of her face.

I have no suggestion on how to fix her pjs 

I also think her right foot seems in an odd position, maybe her shoe slipped off?

[Hannie]

Hi Gerlinde,

Just for the record, the Aussie branch of distributors has exclusive rights to the Mucking-upper machine now so it couldn't have been me sending you horrible photos to restore!


You are right about the levels and curves and the color of her skin.
I think we see the bottom of her shoe and the little thingies sticking out may be a bow or ribbon?
 
The worst part for me is the PJs and shape of her seat, I have given up on this one for the moment and I'm hoping somebody else will feel inspired.

Hannie

[glennab]

Hi Hannie

I've been playing around with this little precious, and while I haven't come up with a good color correction, I was working more at trying to discern some of the detail.  I went to CMYK and fiddled around with my favorite calculations, and came up with an image that indicates pretty clearly to me that the lightness at the bottom of her face is part of the light streak of damage that crosses the photo on a diagonal - lower at the right and just below her ear on the left - rather like airbrushing.

It looks as if her little dress covers most of her right leg and causes it to blouse out on the side (check the line that crosses in above her feet that looks as if it might be a hem), and I think you're right about the bow on her shoe and that most of what we're seeing is the sole.

As for the pattern, I'd clean up all the white and then look for possible repeats that might give you an idea of where to place bits of color and shape that would coincide.  I doubt that there's much else you can do with that.

Very interesting and tough project!

And you have the Dutch grapes to blame the muck on our Aussie distribution crew?  For shame!  We know your act.  Tess, you don't have to take that.  I'll back you up! Ms. Hun, the angel with the harp fools no one!

(I wuv U!)

GK

P.S. I hesitate to post my image, because the color is awful.  As I said, I was more trying to pull out detail.  The color correction is a toughie as well.

[Hannie]

Thanks Glenna for taking the time to help out.  I see what you mean about the white streak running over the lower part of her face, it goes with what Margie said earlier.
I can also see the the hem line you mentioned.  I'm not sure though how far back an to the side her top or bottoms go. 

How did you know we grow grapes here?   
Did I say Aussie?  I meant Germany!  It is there that the big Mucker- Upper resides!

Hannie

[glennab]

Hannie, something I just noticed that hadn't caught my eye before is the group of folds at the baby's right (our left) where it's difficult to see the point at which the dress begins and ends.  Those folds indicate to me that the dress is long and that she's sitting on it, which is causing the folds.  I don't think that bloomers would fold that way.  Just a thought.  It really is difficult to be certain, so I'm using my razor-sharp deduction tool to make my statement.  (Hey, you have muck tools - it only seems fair!)

Jonas, it appears that the gauntlet has been thrown at you.  I'd toss it back - quickly - before Ms Hun comes up with any other nefarious accusations or plans!

GK

[srcrocke]

This is an interesting one. It looks as if the catchlights in the baby's eyes are at the 2'oclock position. So the light is high and to her left. That is why her headband is lit and there is a deep shadow on the right side of her face. Actually, it looks like there is no detail at all on her right side by her ear or it is a silhouette. You can see a very harsh shadow across her right shoulder as well.

Since light travels in a straight line, the shadow from the shoulder could be connected to the shadow of the face.

Or I could just not have any idea.  This is interesting!

Just wanted to pipe in.

Sandra

[Judy]

Sandra,

I am intrigued by the shadow analysis.  However, why is her right hand do dark and not the surrounding PJs.  Also why is the left side of the background so much darker than than the right side.

I keep saying I need more training in such things, but I am beginning to think the photographers do too!

I suspect some of my issues come from there being multiple lights.  My theory is that the left cheek is the color that one should go with, that the white streak is really damage.  Besides it makes the child look deformed!

Judy

[Hannie]

Glenna, good point about the baby dress and bloomers.
As it turned out  the mucker-upper machine is in possession of Margie, our dearly beloved President!  She is the one to blame for all our specks, dust and spots ridden photos!  (how's that for my using razor sharp deduction tool!)

Sandra thank for the shadow/light perspective.  It helps to better figure out what is visible and what isn't.

Hannie

[Mhayes]

Great tips and insight on this photo. Unfortunately Hannie has taken to passing the buck and accusing me of being in possession of the mucker-upper machine. That machine was given to her as a service award--Photos Altered Beyond Recognition--2 years ago at Christmas. 

Margie

[srcrocke]

Judy,

The baby's right hand is darker on the backside (what you are seeing) because the light is hitting her palm. The light source is coming from the baby's left side and slightly above.

Think of it as a flashlight shining on her from the front left side. The flashlight has a beam so wide, so depending on where the person holding the flashlight is standing, will determine how bright the light is on certain spots of the subject.

This particular light is spilling on to the background on the baby's left side and the photographer is taking the picture from the baby's right side . Therefore, he is catching some of that light spill on the background.

One last thing is that white reflects more light than other colors. Photographers have to worry about getting a good exposure on someone's face without over-exposing their white clothes.

I think you are correct regarding the color of the baby's skin. Where the light is shining on the left cheek is the true tonality if the exposure is metered properly.

Lighting is one of the hardest things to learn in photography I think. I still have a lot to learn. I really admire your work on all the posts.

Sandra