Please look over this one

[PhotoBob]

I've been at this one for a while and would appreciate any input. I wish there was more definition between the groom and his best man behind him - but it just isn't there. The biggest challenge was all the water streaks.  Thank you for looking.

Original:



WIP / final?


Bob

[Bambi]

Looks good to me, Bob.

Bambi

[dle]

Nice job, Bob.

You've done a particularly good job of preserving what there is of the lighter and darker tones, pulling out about as much of the faces and the lapels of the groom's jacket as there is in the original .jpg.

Although a .jpg works well for most photos, it's a case like this one when I wish the restorer had access to the raw file in addition to the jpg. Since a raw file has greater bit depth than a .jpg, it's often possible to use it to restore things that are simply gone once the original capture is boiled down to a jpg.

The water damage must has given you fits -- and some of it comes right across the faces of the bride and groom. It's not easy to even out those tones. What technique did you use?

[PhotoBob]

Thanks Dave, we all do the best with what we have  :up2:.  I dealt with the streaks in chunks where there were obvious start and stop points. I did a loose selection around the area I wanted to adjust and put it on it's own layer (ctrl-J). I added a curves adjustment layer above that and made it only affect that layer. Then I adjusted the curve to make the streak balance out with the surrounding area. Working with just gray tones made this easier than working in color. Then you put a white mask on the layer you just corrected and paint with a very soft black brush to smooth out and blend in the edges. Usually I had to go back to the curves correction layer for a final "tweek".  And then there was the mold...
All I had to do was repeat the above procedure, over and over and over ...   (a good time was had by all!)

Bob

[Mhayes]

Bob, I think you have done a great job on this and know that the family is going to be very happy with the results.

Although a .jpg works well for most photos, it's a case like this one when I wish the restorer had access to the raw file in addition to the jpg. Since a raw file has greater bit depth than a .jpg, it's often possible to use it to restore things that are simply gone once the original capture is boiled down to a jpg.

David, that is a nice wish, but not practical for the kind of work we do and especially when there are a volume of photos. Not sure if this particular photo was taken at the Lindsborg run, but if it was let me explain what is involved.

The camera was a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and I have the follow options to shoot at:
Raw at 21.l MB
sRaw1 at 10MB
sRaw2 at 5 MB
JPEG Large Normal/Fine at 21.1 MB
JPEG Medium Normal/Fine at 10 MB
JPEG Small Normal/Fine at 5 MB

One reason Raw is not being shot at copy runs is that it would add a ton more more for us and if you start getting over 100+ photos on a run---that is a lot of extra work.  On the Lindsborg the last option of JPEG Small Normal/Fine at 5 MB would have been what I chose and it probably would have been better to have chosen the next level up. To go higher at 21.l MB would cause all sorts of headaches, not to mention needing lots of cards for space and also the time to download. So in the end, the JPEG is our best option.

Margie

[dle]

Bob,

Thanks for sharing your technique -- it's always interesting to understand how folks go about doing what they do. And, as in this case, I'm often reminded that with Photoshop there are many approaches to problems that lead to great results.

The technique you used certainly works well as evidenced by your results! But its also quite different from the one I generally use. Generally I use a layer above the background set to "Soft light" blend mode and about 50% opacity filled with 50% gray. This layer has no effect on the image at all until you paint on it with a soft, low opacity brush. Painting with white lighten the area and painting with black darkens it. Using a low opacity for the brush lets you build up the effect by painting repeatedly.

As I said, there are so many ways to do something and do it well.

===

Margie,

Yes, I understand what you're saying. We disagree on whether it's practical to use raw captures at copy runs without adding a ton of work, and I know it's not a topic worth pursuing. But I still wish...

[PhotoBob]

Thank you Margie.  It's good to see you with your helmet off  :)

Dave -  I tried using that first but couldn't get it consistent enough. I think it was just too large of an area. I think I unsuccessfully fiddled with it for 45 min before I gave up and switched to the layer masks & curves.  Thanks for the tip though, it's a good method that works well in most cases - or anytime you reach for the dodge or burn tools.

Bob

[Mhayes]

Thanks Bob, my neck was getting stiff with it on.  ;)

Margie