Dapper Little Dude

[Marydh]

Hi,
Is he cute or what? 
See what you think.   All comments appreciated.
Thanks,
Mary

[Mhayes]

Mary, what a cutie. You had your work cut out for you on this one. This is a small pic, but on the tree trunk if the lines could be more crisp as my eyes go right to both sides and the blurring. Small pic on a really nice restore.

Margie

[Marydh]

Yes, I see what you mean Margie.  Maybe around the pants too? Thanks.
I just noticed that I think I need to burn a tad around the shirt?
Also, I forgot to check threshold and I think the white in the shirt could come down a bit.

[Lynnya]

Lookin real good Mary..look forward to the final final... :up:

[Shadow]

I'm with Lynn Mary ... really nice! Margie's tips will make it even better.

[Marydh]

I made a few more changes, for the better?
Watcha think?

[Jo Ann Snover]

It is better - and is pretty amazing given the very messed up original

I think a couple of additional edits would make a lot of difference to the end result. I did a quick-and-dirty version to explain what I'm suggesting




- Around the boy's neck, where it meets the shirt, there's a bunch of green that shouldn't be there
- The tree trunk edges are still not quite solid. I cloned the edges from interior bark -  you can follow ridges which make nice edges. Just avoid repeating patterns
- The light-blasted left side of the tree and the grass at the back were darkened a little (Curves adjustment layer set to multiply mode and paint in gray to taste)
- The boy's face was darkened a little with the above multiply layer
- I used a high pass sharpening layer, masked to just the eyes, nose, mouth and some parts of the sweater and shirt to bring back a little sharpness. I does add some noise
- There are some hard edges in the grass and on the bottom of the boy's pant leg that need to be cloned over
- I added a little contrast to the image as it seemed slightly flat.

See what you think.

[Marydh]

Thanks so much Jo Ann.  I'll get busy on your suggestions.
Question: Is it ok to use sharpening now?
Mary

[Jo Ann Snover]

I don't know the answer about sharpening in a case like this - where you're trying to get back sharpness that was lost as part of the damage. It's obviously up to the distributor to say.

If you are allowed to, I strongly suggest avoiding sharpening any image overall (except if you're processing RAW files, which doesn't apply here). Mask the sharpened layer all black and then paint in only the necessary parts. Skin, skies and all sorts of texture areas can get mangled if you include them. I think high pass sharpening is the best balance between defining edges and avoiding "crunchy", halo'd results, but everyone has their favorite approach.

[Mhayes]

I should have been more clear on what I meant by crisp, or the very least not given the impression that i meant to sharpen. One of our rules is not to sharpen because there is no way to undo this when it gets to QC. If QC sees the need then it will be done. When I look at the photo I'm okay with the background faded out because often that can be the camera as the focus is on what is closer. My eye was drawn to the fuzziness of the outline of the tree. I'm beginning to think darkening would help and what I did was add a new layer with soft light and checked the 50% gray box and very lightly darkened the outline of the tree and the background closes. What is further will be lighter. Just an idea.

[Marydh]

Back again.  See what you think this time.

[Marydh]

OOPS. Forgot the  picture.

[Mhayes]

Mary, I like it!  :up: Great job of getting rid of the bands of color.

[Lynnya]

Nice Mary!  :up: :up: :up:

[Marydh]

Thank you all.  I'll send him on.