Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Recent Posts
[Today at 05:55:17 AM]

[Today at 12:02:22 AM]

[Today at 12:01:18 AM]

[Yesterday at 04:26:17 AM]

[July 22, 2014, 10:53:50 PM]

[July 21, 2014, 06:00:16 AM]

[July 19, 2014, 04:26:14 AM]

[July 18, 2014, 06:44:23 PM]

[July 16, 2014, 07:52:01 AM]

[July 13, 2014, 07:08:05 AM]
OPR Theme-o-matic

Locations of visitors to this page
Total Members: 850
New This Month: 9
New This Week: 4
New Today: 1
Birthdays:
JudiRose (54), Crispy77 (37), ReactionStudios (40), Mike Hoffman (53), penegway (65)

Events:
There are no events today.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view pictures!
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hirshey family  (Read 3400 times)
Johnboy
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Hamilton, Ohio
Posts: 523



« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2012, 06:25:45 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
Logged
Mhayes
Site Admin
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Kansas
Posts: 4115



« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2012, 06:33:57 PM »

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
Logged

"carpe diem"

Margie Hayes
OPR President
mhayes@operationphotorescue.org
Johnboy
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Hamilton, Ohio
Posts: 523



« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2012, 07:04:17 PM »

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
Logged
Pat
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Michigan
Posts: 1003



« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2012, 09:58:52 PM »

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?



Pat
Logged

Pat

"Take a deep breath and think of the three things you are grateful for, right in this moment."  -MJ Ryan Author
Hannie
Site Admin
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 3420



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2012, 04:35:30 AM »

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
Logged

Hannie Scheltema
Distribution Coordinator
hannie@operationphotorescue.org
kiska
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: NE Ala., NW Ga.
Posts: 1116



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2012, 05:38:32 AM »

I think the shadow on the grass in both pics is the photographer looking down to focus a twin lens reflex camera.
Logged

kiska
Photoshop CS5, MacPro
Pat
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Michigan
Posts: 1003



« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2012, 06:32:47 AM »

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

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
Logged

Pat

"Take a deep breath and think of the three things you are grateful for, right in this moment."  -MJ Ryan Author
kiska
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: NE Ala., NW Ga.
Posts: 1116



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2012, 07:12:57 AM »

I think the shadow on the tree is caused by the fence post with barbed wire on it?
Logged

kiska
Photoshop CS5, MacPro
Pat
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Michigan
Posts: 1003



« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2012, 07:22:20 AM »

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
Logged

Pat

"Take a deep breath and think of the three things you are grateful for, right in this moment."  -MJ Ryan Author
kiska
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: NE Ala., NW Ga.
Posts: 1116



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2012, 07:45:03 AM »

Maybe this whole area is a stain?

Logged

kiska
Photoshop CS5, MacPro
Mike S.
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Michigan
Posts: 450



« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2012, 08:13:11 AM »

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
Logged

Mike S.
Mhayes
Site Admin
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Kansas
Posts: 4115



« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2012, 02:36:07 PM »

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
Logged

"carpe diem"

Margie Hayes
OPR President
mhayes@operationphotorescue.org
Johnboy
OPR Master
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Hamilton, Ohio
Posts: 523



« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2012, 04:16:30 PM »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: