I think this one is ready for a look see. The original looked liked someone dumped all their laundry lint onto the photo. I think I have all the spots and damage. I am sure you will let me know what I missed.
Note that dad appears to have part of his left lip missing. So what may look like damage is, I think, his tooth. This is more noticeable when the photo is enlarged.
Original
(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/9886/hirsheyp177orig.jpg)
WIP
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8929/hirsheyp177wip1.jpg)
Johnboy
Hi Johnboy,
Good call on the lip and you are right. I called the owner and she said that he did have a cleft lip. I think you have done a good job on the clean up. I would suggest that when you upload that you do one version in black/white (still in RGB mode) as I think the yellow is from age and perhaps water damage. Some photos are in sepia, but this one I do not think was.
Margie
Thanks Margie. I am not sure what you mean doing a B&W version and keeping it in RGB. I am aware of the B&W Image>Mode and I am sure that is not what you mean. I am also aware from Katrin Eismann's book of using the best from Channels as a B&W. So I guess I am asking for some clarification and perhaps a tut if needed.
Thanks for the help.
Johnboy
Hi Johnboy,
I think what Margie means is that you can upload a B/W version of your restore but don't use the Grayscale mode from the dropdown menu. Stay in RGB mode, you can do that by adding a Channel Mixer adjustment layer and check the monochrome box.
Hannie
Thanks Hannie for the tip. I was quite sure that Margie did not mean Greyscale mode. After I posted my reply to her I was looking through the section in Katrin's book on converting color to b&w. I did see a section on Channel Mixer but have not taken time to read it. I'll see what I can do in the next couple of days.
Johnboy
Hi Johnboy,
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, use either the Channel Mixer and check the Monochrome box to get B/W or on CS5 you have a B/W Adjustment layer.
Margie
Thanks Margie. Hannie gave me a good direction. I really hadn't consider the Channel Mixer. I am stuck back on Photoshop CS so the Channel Mixer was my choice. Below I am only showing the two WIP versions since it was a color cast that was in question. The original is at the top.
WIP#1 is the one first posted above. WIP#2 is the one with the Channel Mixer with the Monochrome box checked.
WIP#1
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8929/hirsheyp177wip1.jpg)
WIP#2
(http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9619/hirsheyp177wip2.jpg)
Let me know what you think. Should I send both versions home or just #2?
Johnboy
Hi Johnboy, I personally like WIP#2 the best.
Margie
I agree with Margie. The dark area in the front is a shadow, but I wonder if the darker area behind them on the tree is part of the damage. A new layer in Soft Light and a soft brush with white set at about 11 percent might blend it.
Bambi
Hi Johnboy,
I also like WIP#2 the best. I know this is an old photograph and we should be carefull not to change it too much but I wonder if a little contrast on the (whole) man and also the lady's face would be acceptable?
Hannie
(http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb18/marijtje2/OPR/shadow-3.jpg)
Bambi and Hannie thanks for your replies.
Bambi, I am going to disagree about the tree. To me is this were damage it would also be in the other trees in the background. I think is is a heavy shadow because it follows only the tree trunk. I have no idea what may be hanging from the tree or somewhere else to render a shadow. If it were damage it would also be on the top of the fence post. I am in favor of leaving it as it is.
Hannie, I can give the contrast idea a try on the man but I think the mother's face will go to dark on her left side. I sensed a need for something more in this photo. I tried saturation at the beginning but it made no difference. I did burn in the foreground shadow as it was grayed out in the middle and also a little on the back of the mother's hair. It looks to me that parts need help and other parts are OK. It may be just the photo.
Johnboy
I'm with Bambi about the tree. Note that there's an area of dark on the trees behind.
Lurch if this were damage I would expect it to cover the sky area too. It is only in the trees. In some ways it helps to focus on the family much in the same way you would darken the corners of a portrait to focus on the subject.
Johnboy
Following Hannie's suggestion of adding contrast, I added it to the whole man, mom's face (Hannie I stand corrected on the darkening of the face), and mom's hair. I also played a little with the left corner down to mom's right upper arm.
I am only going to show WIP #2 & 3. The original is at the top.
WIP#2
(http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9619/hirsheyp177wip2.jpg)
WIP#3
(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4941/hirsheyp177wip3.jpg)
Let me know what you think.
Johnboy
Actually, the darkening does appear in the sky.
Margie,
When you get a chance would you please check with the owner about the dark area on the tree in the Hershey family? Personally, I do not think it is photo damage that needs correcting.
Thanks for the help.
Johnboy
Johnboy, sure I would be glad to check. Will let you know when I find out. The owner does not have an email and hopefully she will have her photo to look at. I think she is an older woman and she may not know what I am getting at unless she has the photo in hand.
Margie
Thanks Margie,
I'll wait for your reply. I've been sitting on this one for a few days so a short time more won't make any difference.
Johnboy
Hi Johnboy, this is another original HirsheyP photo Mike and I copied while we were in Joplin. I believe this original photo was taken in the same setting as the one you are working on. The tree looks to be the same with the same dark area. Although it is still unclear what the dark area is, it seems clear that it is not damage. I wonder if there was a tree house or some kind of platform up in the tree casting a shadow?
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc406/PatsPhotos1/HirsheyP17_6_3x4pt5_copy.jpg)
Pat
Pat, I think you are right and that it is a shadow. There also seems to be a plank leaning against the tree on both originals.
Hannie
I think the shadow on the grass in both pics is the photographer looking down to focus a twin lens reflex camera.
I think you are right about the shadow on the ground Kiska. My reference was for the shadow (dark area) up in the tree.
Pat
Quote from: Johnboy on February 09, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Margie,
When you get a chance would you please check with the owner about the dark area on the tree in the Hershey family? Personally, I do not think it is photo damage that needs correcting.
Thanks for the help.
Johnboy
I think the shadow on the tree is caused by the fence post with barbed wire on it?
You're right about that too Kiska. I thought the discussion was regarding the dark area even higher up in the tree though. The dark area where the tree branches fork (above the top of the fence post)?
Pat
Maybe this whole area is a stain?
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm81/kiskaopr/Picture1-36.png)
Good day everyone,
I can't tell if it is a stain or a shadow but because it distracts from the picture I would say it should be corrected.
Mike
Johnboy, I tried calling the owner, but haven't been able to reach her. I think there is another possibility of why the bark at the lower end of tree is lighter than at the top . . .it may not be the same tree. There is the possibility that the lighter part is a tree that has been cut off and that you are seeing wiring wrapped around it for a fence, because it does look like strands to me and they are on all three channels. There is also something around the top of baby's chair and that one I'm not sure off. Take a look at the photo that Pat added and you see the lighter part is separate from the tree in back with that photo being taken at a different angle.
Kiska, caught this on an earlier post and I agree. The shadow on the ground is the person taking the picture and the one on the tree looks like two separte things. I would leave and not try as Hannie said to change an older photo. Helping the contrast and what you have done improves the photo.
I am good with either your WIP #2 and #3 and if you want to lighten the darker areas, you could dodge a little. I think it would be rather hard to do too much in between tree branches without it being noticeable.
Margie
Thanks Margie for trying. Also thanks to Pat, Kiska, Hannie and Mike for your replies.
Pat, thanks for the other view. I confirms my opinion even more that it is not photo damage on that tree. I agree that I don't know where it is coming from but the idea of a tree house in another tree could be a possibility because the lower end of the "shadow" squares off in your photo and my restore.
Hannie, the plank is really a fence post. If you look carefully you will see a wire fence attached to it.
Kiska, the area in question is from the top of the fence post on up the tree in my restore. If you are only talking about the photo Pat posted yes the shadow on the lower part of the tree is from the fence post. If you look at my restore it is taken a little more to the left where the tree and fence post almost align.
Kiska and Mike, you folks seem to be picking up something I am not seeing on my monitor about the tree branches to the left. I only found spots in that area to be corrected. The other possibility is the density of the tree branches and the age of the photo create the illusion of a stain or something that needs correcting.
Margie, I think I will follow your advice, and upload both photos that way the family can have their choice.
Again thanks for all the input.
Johnboy