Requesting guidance

[MFiske]

Hello all,

I am working on this photo and it is a work in progress. I am at a point in the process when I need some guidance on 2 areas of the photo:
1.  The woman's lap area was damaged. It appears that both hands may have been visible in the original photo.  Should I reconstruct her left hand (viewers right) as shown or simply construct that area as lap area?
2.  In the lower right corner (viewers left), the photo date is damaged. It looks like 90 21 92. But 90 doesn't really make sense. What are the suggestions about reconstructing the date?
Thanks! Marilyn

[Tori803]

Hi Marilyn,

Don't you love it when the whole surface of the photo was torn off? No chance to recover the image through the blue channel.

If may be possible to find out the format of the date from other photos of the family, but if not, I would be inclined to keep the portion of the date that can be determined, and edit out the part that can't. To keep the year with the photo is probably a good idea.

As to the missing hand, it's clear that the replacement is a copy of the right hand which looks a little odd. I think I'd cover it up partially with some more of the sweater so it would look like a hand, but not a lot of details. Someone else might have a better idea.

Tori

[Mhayes]

Hi Marilyn,

What a great job you have done so far! I agree with all that Tori suggested. On the hands, it looks to me like one is on top of the other, so probably not much needs to be add there. By removing the added hand, you will then need to adjust the sleeve. This one looks like slow and painstaking work, but it is coming together nicely!

Margie

[jesterjeni]

the lady is wearing glasses that is why she looked a little disfigured in the face, I think the hand in the original is down by her bottom, that is why it looks funny to us here. I smudged out some of the hand. I think that what you have is absolutely wonderfull, keep up the good work...its like a classic car sometimes a little polish makes it shine like new :up:

[jesterjeni]

90 21 92 is the date on the digital negative, I ran it through several programs and came up with the same number everytime
you could always put 09 21 92 it makes more sense, i think that is what it is supposed to represent.

[JTJB]

Hi Marilyn,

In relation to the hand I think if you clone out the arch in the subjects let hand it will come up nice.

For the date I am going to apply a bit of Aussie common dog (sense) and throw my two bob in the ring.

I think the date is more likely the 26/12/06 or 09.  My reason for this date is as follows:

From my recollection, most standard cameras imprinted the date in the bottom right hand corner of an image, never in the top left.  If this is correct, the date could only be in the bottom left corner or top right corner, depending on which way the shooter turned the camera.  So if the photographer rotated the camera anticlockwise to portrait, the result would be the date in the top right corner.  If they rotated the camera clockwise as I believe they have, the date would read 26/12.

That would be the conclusion we would draw down under anyway.

JB


consultation by JTJB Enterprises, on Flickr

[Tori803]

JB-I never thought of rotating the photo (duh!). I never use the date feature on the print, but I know my camera offers several formats for the date. I suspect you're right, the date is probably 26-12-06 (December 26, 2006).

Tori

[MFiske]

Thanks to all for your great guidance. The bit of Aussie common dog (sense) is especially insightful!  Here's close to the finished project....Any further advice? Many thanks, Marilyn[img][/img]

[Hannie]

Great result!

Hannie

[JTJB]

Hi Marilyn,

Nice job, looks good.

Tori don't worry I couldn't stop giggling when the penny finally dropped for me.  I can't believe I looked at everything before I realised what seems to be the obvious.   ;D

JB