Baby Picture

[Alan_P]

Hi Everyone,

Here is my latest for review. I have a sepia filter adjustment layer set to 60%. This is my best guess.





Alan

[kiska]

Actually, this needs to be restored in b/w.....then you maybe could also do a sepia.

[Mhayes]

AlanP,

Kiska is right about doing it first in b/w and in this case don't do a sepia. The reason is that there are two pictures taken at the same time and your sepia will not match the other volunteers. Plus, I think it looks like it was a b/w originally.

This photo is somewhat deceiving because there doesn't look like much damage except on the ripple effect of the background. On both the before and after restore you can see the streaks of light that go through the photo. This looks like water damage and needs to have the photo a more even tonal range. Some parts need to be lighter and on the the lower right hand corner that streak looks like either mold or where the ink in the photo as turned.

Margie

[Hannie]

Hi Alan,

This is a very difficult restore, perhaps an added layer in soft light mode filled with 50% gray can help get rid of the all the light/dark damage that makes this photo looks dirt.
You can use a white or black brush at different opacity to give the photo a more even appearance.  When you are done a Gaussian blur at whatever looks good percentage applied to this added layer should get rid of any telltale lines.

Hannie

[Alan_P]

Hi Everyone,

I am not sure how much of the table is reflection so I left some,




Alan

[Mhayes]

Alan,

It could be reflection on your left corner, but I doubt it since the baby looks like she is sitting on carpet. I know that it can be confusing not knowing how the original looked, but I think the direction you are going is trying to make the damage look good rather than restoring. The photo looks like it was taken by a professional photographer. The damage you are seeing I think is the result of being in flood water that would not only darken the photo and make it look dirty, but would also cause the streaking. It looks dramatic with the baby coming out of the shadows, but not realistic. Her dress should not be so dark and closer to the lightest part you are showing.

If you can help it, please do not remove a former photo from a post. If you feel that you have to, then go back into that original post with the missing photo and hit the modify button in the upper right hand corner and delete your link to PhotoBucket.

We have too many post where the photos are missing and when it is a tutorial; it makes the whole post confusing and worthless. Because of that, we will be removing post with photos missing.

Margie

[Alan_P]

Hi Everyone.

Here is my lates. Your comments are very helpfull.



Alan

[kevinashworth]

Hi Alan - I think the notion that the baby is on a carpet is right, and i see how you've hinted at this, but it's got clone stamp written all over it, and i reckon QC will catch you on this.

For this type of pic i would lean towards removing shine from the table, and leave it dull and vague with little or no detail. The baby is the most important thing, Besides, the apparent shine and reflections you see are just wrinkles in the flood-damaged photo, I can tell they are wrinkles made by the spotlight bouncing off the gloss emulsion back to the camera because they contain blue tinges that give that semi-solarised look. You can see this effect around the babies foreground fingers on the original.

Also i'd increase the contrast a little more, and work on the baby's face as it looks a little bit dirty and blotchy. Otherwise, a definite improvement!

[Alan_P]

Hi Everyone,

I hope this one will do it.



Alan