Your Thoughts on this one-please

[Ausimax]

My latest subject, give me your views on it please.







Max

[Kenny]

Hey Max.

First of all, it looks great!  :up:

Now, for my input:

You might darken the ceiling and add in a shadow behind the light. If you look in the original, it looks to be the main light source for the room, so it casts shadows on the ceiling and the back wall near the corner.

Where you restored the blue wall on the left could use a little tweaking. There is a little too much contrast where the original parts of the image meet the new blue wall. It's most noticeable to me where the black of the man's hair and the woman's hair on the left meet the wall.

I'm thinking you probably put the wall on a new layer, that rules out being able to feather that part. Maybe merging the wall with the original and then using the blur tool to soften the contrast.

Anyway, it looks wonderful, really. I'm just nitpicking.


Kenny

[cmpentecost]

Hi Max,

Nice job on the restoration.  When I looked at it, I was trying to figure out what it was that was missing, and I think Kenny hit it, when he mentioned shadows.  The antlers and light should probably have some very subtle shadows, as that would give the photo a more realistic look and depth.  Also, the table angle is a bit different by the man on the right.  Perhaps just clone a bit more of his sweater where the table is.

Otherwise, great job!   :up:

Christine

[vhansen]

Just a comment about the woman in the background, to the left.  In the original, it looks as if she is resting her chin on her hand, with the hand and fingers cupping her cheek.

[Kenny]

Vikki, I think you're right. It looks like she's making that home alone face. I don't know any other way to describe it.

I don't want to post copyrighted material, so I'll link to what I mean

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38040000/jpg/_38040328_homealone.jpg

Like that, only not so comical.  :funny:



Kenny

[Ausimax]

Kenny,
Yes I am aware of the lack of shadow of the light, still thinking of how to do it that won't look artificial, this is one of the problems I have, I spend so much time looking at the damaged image trying to discern detail that the damage sort of becomes the norm, and when you get it cleaned up, that looks artificial.

Re the contrast on the blue wall, when it is all the same colour it looks fake, I did quite a bit of burning on it to avoid that, low on the wall near people I think it is reasonable that there will be shading from shadow and less light, much as the upper part of the wall is usually darker than the mid areas.

The ceiling, I could not define from the original what colour it had been, reason said if the walls were dark colours the ceiling would be light, my independent expert on all things decor (DW) suggested the colour, again a case of it appearing too pristine I think.

Christine,

The antlers on the on the walls have shadows, just hard to see in the low res image, the big antlers are in fact only a shadow to start with. Re: the table, I changed it a bit to try and cut down the amount of crappy cloning visible, I could not find enough material with the pattern going in the right direction to get it looking decent, its one of problems, you just hope the recipients of the photos aren't going to keep comparing them with the damage one all the time, if they do then we are all just wasting our time, you just can't make it "right". The dark wall I am fairly sure is timber panelling or boards with a pattern of knots in the timber, there is just no way you can replicate that and make it look real.

Vikki,

You are right about her hands, and they are still there in the restoration, though not as prominent, this part of the image probably gave me the most grief of the whole thing, what is very apparent in the low res view looses all definition at higher resolutions, I could recover no detail from the image, in the badly damaged red areas I tried cloning in some skin tone from some of the other people, that didn't work, no amount of burning, desaturating or smudging would make it look natural, I have probably extended the hair a bit to help cover it - in short that is as good as I can get it, I have seriously considered leaving it untouched, as the charter states that some of these photos will still have considerable damage visible.

Q: What do you all think, the "restored" or damaged version?


I am surprised that no one picked up on the second light, in the original it seems to hang from some sort of wall bracket, for the life of me I can't see what it looks like to replicate it, then is the problem of creating something that does not look contrived, DW suggested leaving it as it is as it looks like a wall light.

Still a lot of unresolved issues with this one, this is where you wish you had a little more artistic ability, I am afraid that when I fake something that is it, it looks Fake!

Thank you for your comments,it all helps resolve things in my mind, and any other suggestions would be welcomed.

Max

[Ausimax]

This is the latest generation, a few tweaks and changes, tell me what you think.





Max

[Kenny]

Much much better!  :up:

[TimeTraveler]

It looks great, I just see a couple of things that I didn't see mentioned.
The woman in the middle, her face looks washed, I don't know the correct term.  I'd try adjusting levels and/or brightness/contrast just on her face.
In the far left background there is another part of a face visible behind the woman.  That's why her chin looks like Jay Lenno's.  There are 2 faces there.  It looks to me like there is a partial face of a woman wearing glasses.
I hope this helps.

[glennab]

Hi Max --

Sorry I'm coming into this a little late, but 3 things strike me.  The brown background appears to be wood paneling. I see what look like knots and striations in the center below the painting.  Also there's a set of antlers(?) above the fellow on our right -- they're slightly to the left and up pretty high.  The woman in question on the left is definitely cupping her face in her hands.  I can see a ring on one of her fingers. and the dark blue below her face is a cuff from which her hand is protruding. She appears to have what I can best describe as a "smirky" smile -- no teeth showing.

This is like one of those puzzle pictures where you have to squint your eyes and try to find patterns to pull out an image.  For some reason those things popped out to me right away.

As usual, you're doing a fine job on a virtually "impossible" restoration.

My best to you and DM,

GG

[Ausimax]

Hi Folks.

Time Traveler,

The womans face has already been adjusted, this photo was taken with Flash, ergo the "Red-eye" and the washed out faces, any more adjustment starts to detract from the authenticity of the image.
There is only one face at the left, as already discussed, she has her face cupped in her hands.

glennab,

Yes it is panelling as I mentioned earlier

Christine,

The antlers on the on the walls have shadows, just hard to see in the low res image, the big antlers are in fact only a shadow to start with. Re: the table, I changed it a bit to try and cut down the amount of crappy cloning visible, I could not find enough material with the pattern going in the right direction to get it looking decent, its one of problems, you just hope the recipients of the photos aren't going to keep comparing them with the damage one all the time, if they do then we are all just wasting our time, you just can't make it "right". The dark wall I am fairly sure is timber panelling or boards with a pattern of knots in the timber, there is just no way you can replicate that and make it look real.

Vikki,

You are right about her hands, and they are still there in the restoration, though not as prominent, this part of the image probably gave me the most grief of the whole thing, what is very apparent in the low res view looses all definition at higher resolutions, I could recover no detail from the image, in the badly damaged red areas I tried cloning in some skin tone from some of the other people, that didn't work, no amount of burning, desaturating or smudging would make it look natural, I have probably extended the hair a bit to help cover it - in short that is as good as I can get it, I have seriously considered leaving it untouched, as the charter states that some of these photos will still have considerable damage visible.

I am aware of the other set of antlers, however there was not enough detail to reconstruct them, so I opted to leave them out rather than try and construct something that would look unrealistic.

Re; the wood panelling there just isn't enough there to reconstruct without the same pattern repeating to often to look real, the only other option is to try and import a wall, I tried that once before with no success, so I won't go down that road again.

Generally I think I have taken this one about as far as I can, I will sit and cogitate on it for a couple of days and see if any inspiration strikes. Thank you all for your valuable ideas and encouragement, I am only sorry my skills can't take full advantage of that advice.

Max

[Kenny]

Max, it looks great, and the owner will be tickled pink when they see your work. As far as your skills go, you have awesome skills! With photoshop there are 101 different ways to do the same thing and we all use slightly different techniques from time to time.

I learned from online tutorials and, of course, OPR. I try things people suggest and if it works for me, I use it. You've done an awesome job on this one, so be proud!  :up:


Kenny

[cmpentecost]

Nice job Max,

The owners will be thrilled.  The people in the photo look great, and that's what counts.  Afterall, they didn't submit the photo for restoration because the walls had damage, but the people! 

Well done!

Christine

[havril]

Hi Max
Excellent restoration  work on a very challenging job. My only comment is that  IMO there is no ceiling in the original pic what you can see is the frame and other peices from another pic that stuck on top of this one.

Harvey

[Ausimax]

Kenny, Christine

Thanks for your kind comments and advice during this restoration, it has been of great help and encouragement.

Harvey, you are right there is no ceiling visible in the original, though it stands to reason there is one. It had me tossed for a while, I thought the dark line behind the womans head was the corner of the room and that the grey area was something projected on the wall.

Once I realised that the grey area was the wall, it seemed reasonable that above that grey wall was the ceiling, once I established the ceiling area the room then took on some sort of perspective, anyway thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

Thanks for your interest and input, a different viewpoint is always valuable.

Max