WIP - Major parts of subject missing

[Priscilla]

Hello.  I am working on my first OPR image.  I haven't made my finishing edits and I have masked out my edits on the lower half of the image in order to get fresh set of eyes on the bottom.  I am trying to discern between damage and underlying detail.  Separate channels have given me no help.  The whiter areas could be pure damage, or the water could have destroyed the finish of the photo paper and removed the yellowing of the finish.

What I see in the original is a toddler on an adult-sized chair – maybe a dining chair.  It looks like she might be standing on the chair – the very bottom looks like a chair cushion.  It doesn't look to me like a portrait prop – a short bench/chair/stool where she might sit.  The material around her neck and shoulders look too bulky for a christening gown – but the lack of detail may be deceiving.  It looks short sleeved, but it was common in the early 50s (maybe late 40s) to have long sleeves with a cap ruffle.

What I don't see are the child's arms or legs/feet.  There are no other images for reference.

If, in fact, that is a dining chair, I have the resources to recreate that.  I see no issue.

The child's body and clothing are the issue.  I have perused Google images and Pinterest and have found clothing that could be useful.  The arms, hands, legs, and feet are quite problematic.  First, there is no way of knowing how much of her body truly shows and in what positions.  Second, recreating body parts short of looking illustrative will be a problem.

What is the OPR philosophy of restoring questionable (or missing) parts of the image?  Make it complete regardless if we guess incorrectly or make it illustrative?  Restore what is substantially definite resulting more of a cropped version of the original?

I know which direction I would go for my own damaged images.  What are your thoughts on the philosophy?  What are your thoughts on the lower half of the image?

Thanks in advance.    :)

[Jo Ann Snover]

You picked a doozy for your first restore! Great picture though

I don't know about the policy issues on something like this - I have cloned from shoes and other "bits" when necessary and that's been OK'd, so I'm guessing that the clothing and chair being restored from borrowed items wouldn't be a problem.

However, I did draw some outlines over the original image where I think I saw the girl's arms, one leg and one chair leg. what I was after is an idea of her posture - to help fill in the guesswork about the props.

I darkened the view of the original (curves adjustment layer set to multiply blend mode)  to see better and did two layers - one outlining what I could see and the other with the "maybe" shapes that would make sense given human anatomy and such. See what you think



I think she's sitting on the chair. The chair is square to the camera and her legs are dangling over the chair front. Her arms are holding on to the chair - the arm on the right of the picture possibly just resting on the chair surface vs. gripping an edge. It's possible she was sitting on her hands, or her hands were under her dress.

In case it's not obvious, the green shapes are the chair parts we can't see and the pink shape is where her other leg must be (looking at the position of her head and shoulders, that's the only place it could be. If she's right at the edge of the chair seat, her legs are just dangling almost straight down as opposed to bent at the knee.

I can't be sure, but I think it's at least a solid guess :)

[Priscilla]

Thank you, Jo Ann!

Attached is the texture layer from a frequency separation that I had already put in my layers to get a feel of what was going on.  It seems that you saw something similar.  At least I feel that my eyes not just creating what I want to see in that mess of splats. :)

[Mhayes]

Priscilla,

You are brave for taking this one on and in this case the family was told that there wasn't much that could be saved. Do not bring in something from other photos to try and make this one work. What I would suggest is what good parts you have of the baby keep and the rest is just not there. What is confusing is the orientation that you show the baby. Originally the baby is laying down and not in a chair. However, having a head only and working from there is hard too. The photo is also an 8 x 10 which is a big mistake on our part, because it should have been cropped down.

Here's where I would like some ideas on how to give the owner at least the baby's head and shoulders and perhaps do a vignette. I see no logical way to complete this and I know just having the baby's sweet face will be reward enough.

[Priscilla]

Thank you, Margie.

Yes, I received the image in a supine position; but, you can see in the original that there is definitely a chair back behind the child's head.  This is the reason that I rotated it.  I would have rotated it back when I was finished.

I agree 100% with this statement: "Here's where I would like some ideas on how to give the owner at least the baby's head and shoulders and perhaps do a vignette. I see no logical way to complete this and I know just having the baby's sweet face will be reward enough."

That is what I would prefer if it were my damaged image.  After all, if we guess wrong with the rest, it will not be the memory the owner has of this image.  I would like to preserve what is left of the original and not make up the rest.  I was struggling with protocol, since this is my first.

Thanks!!!!!

[Mhayes]

Priscilla,

You have my permission to save what you can and then a vignette, and if you do that then it would look better in the upright position. I would do one with soft edges that fades out. And your welcome.  :cool:

Margie

[Priscilla]

I have a few from which to choose: black/white or sepia and original background/vignette. 

Last question: keep the size (which will print around 3x4 a 300 ppi)?  or resize to 8x10 at 300 ppi?

[Mhayes]

Priscilla,

The 1st two and not sepia. This photo had a sepia int only because of the water damage. Send in your 1st two and also send an exact crop of the original to match the 3 x 4, 300 dpi. Quality Control compares original to restored and that is why need the version cropped.

Great job on the vignette as very subtle! Such a sweet face, almost looks like a doll.

Margie

[Candice]

Someone is going to be very, very happy with this restore!!

[Priscilla]

Thank you Margie and Candice.  :)  This baby has such an adorable face!

I have uploaded both black and white versions along with the original - all exact crop, no size adjustment.  The crop is the original 8x10 *ratio*, but the 300 dpi size is around 3x4.

I noticed the age of the scan.  Is there a way to view the oldest scanned images?  I would rather give a shot at the oldest than cherry pick from the galleries.

Thanks for your help, everyone.  :loveit:

Priscilla