Dirty Baby Face

Brian N · January 18, 2014, 02:47:12 PM

Please provide any guidance and comments. I had taken this photo thinking (hoping) it was a channel replacement. Well, not so much. Like many, you really don't know what you're in for until you download the actual photo. This one has turned out to push my limits but it has been worthwhile. I've been experimenting with the mixer brush and have arrived at the following after photo. I'd appreciate any comments and if I'm heading in the right direction. I understand it still needs some work. Would there have been a better method to clean up the face? Any channels looked at (RGB and lab) seemed to be dirty. Appreciate any inputs on how to clean up the background as well.

Brian

dle · January 18, 2014, 04:48:36 PM

This is a tough one, for sure. Dirt like this is just not easily taken off without destroying the remaining detail. A technique I've used successfully is to add a layer filled with 50% gray and set to Soft Light blend mode Then, using a low opacity -- 15% or less -- soft-ish brush paint with white. Each stroke builds up a little lightening. If you go too far in a an area, a stroke or two with black will make it darker.

Because the dirt also changes the color, simple lightening won't be enough -- the lightened areas shift color. You can often correct this with a color balance layer. Add the layer and adjust the sliders to make darkened areas about right. The rest of the image will look terrible, of course. Invert the mask to hide the color balance and then use a low opacity white brush on the mask to bring the color balance back in the areas that were lightened.

With that done, the standard retouching techniques will still be needed, but *much* easier to do. Starting with the original image you posted, I did a quick not-too-careful version of the lighten + color balance just on her face to get this image:

As you can see, it's still far from perfect, but more than the few minutes I spent with it going back and forth between lightening and color balancing would bring it much closer. Eventually, as I said, diminishing returns for additional time spent sets in and at that point, switching to another technique is the way to go.

Hope this is useful.

Pat · January 18, 2014, 07:11:17 PM

Another great mini tutorial Dave; thanks so much for sharing!

Pat

bjtx · January 19, 2014, 01:32:47 AM

Brian, thanks for posting the original image & your wip. It's been a lot of hard work for you, hasn't it?
Dave, thanks for your tip of painting with light.

I've been trying my hand with the image. So far, my best results with removing the dark smudges has been by using the latest version of camera raw - increasing the white slider & raising the shadow slider. (make sure that all other sliders are set to no effect, including the sharpening options.) Next, set the working layer to luminosity with a mask, & paint in where needed. A levels adjustment was used to darken the midtones.

Another method tried was using PS shadow & highlight on each channel. Also, I used curves on the blue channel to add more brightness, by raising the black point upward. The layer needs to be set to luminosity, followed by a stamp visible layer with a mask. Shut off the luminosity (shad/hil) layer, & then paint on the stamp visible layer mask as needed,

I hope my 2 cents helps some & is not confusing. I will try to post my results tomorrow, with a few more details.

Just curious, which gallery the image was in. I don't recall seeing it.
Betty

Mhayes · January 19, 2014, 03:07:21 AM

Brian, I think Dave's tutorial should help you with the color correction and be a guide in keeping the variation of shading in the baby's face. That is what keeps a photo from looking like it is painted.

Betty, before posting how to work a photo step by step--post your WIP along with it (it also helps to have a screen print of your layers). One thing I don't want done on OPR's photos is to have them brought in as RAW files from the jpg format they were shot in. Other than a chance to play with all the various settings, it is not constructive to do it this way and most likely you are going to have Quality Control out with a bounty on your head. :mad: Here is a good link explaining why not to do it that way: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3216668

Thanks,

Margie

Brian N · January 19, 2014, 10:13:20 AM

Thanks all for your comments and differing workflows. I figured the painterly affect of the mixer brush was a bit much. I'll try Dave's and Betty's approaches and post back progress on one or the other. Again thanks for the support. I feel the more I can stretch my ability and gain insight from those of you with more experience the better I can serve OPR in the future. Thanks for your patience and talents.

Brian

bjtx · January 19, 2014, 11:34:15 AM

Margie, thank you for reminding us to be careful not to convert a jpeg to a raw image. It was not my intention to suggestion such a conversion -- I would never convert to raw. (Wish I would have thought to mention that in my earlier post)

I definitely agree that the image should always maintain the JPEG format & the same resolution of the original. Maintaining both - Jpeg format & 300 ppi resolution can be accomplished within camera raw without a problem. (I would also suggest that a duplicate of the working image be used, just to be on the safe side.)

fwiw - I rarely use camera raw, however, it's newer shadow & highlight adjustment capabilities seem to be much smoother & balanced, producing quicker & better results than the shadow/highlight adjustment in the PS program.

Mhayes · January 19, 2014, 03:03:05 PM

I don't want to hijack Brian's post to discuss the merits of RAW, but I would like to touch on what Betty had to say about using Camera Raw to edit photos. My reply was probably a little confusing too when I said I didn't want OPR's JPG file brought in as RAW files and hinted the file format being changed. It would still be a JPF, same resolution, and file extension.. You can open a JPG file in RAW in Photoshop and it will still be a JPG, but if in Raw you will create some problems if you hit the "Done" instead of the "Open button.

From: Scott Kilby (The Adobe Photoshop CS5 Book for Digital Photographers) page 24.

Quote"But there is a big distinction between editing JPEG or TIFF images and editing a RAW image. If you click the Done button, you're actually affecting the real pixels of the original JPEG, or TIFF, whereas, if this were a RAW image, you wouldn't be (which is another big advantage of shooting in RAW). If you click the Open Image button, and open your JPEG or TIFF in Photoshop, you're opening and editing the real image, as well."

Since I'm on PS CS5 I'm not familiar with the newer Shadow & Highlight adjustment capabilities. I'm guessing it like the older CS5, but better? If it is not an adjustment layer, then it would be more destructive since you cannot undo the changes.

bjtx · January 19, 2014, 03:50:49 PM

fwiw:a less controversial approach using curves & color.

last WIP

The color range tool was used to select the different tones of 'dirt'. A curves adjustment layer was opened which contained the selected areas. The target adjustment brush of the curves tool was raised to desired output. The mask was then blurred with gaussian blur to smooth out the effect.

A light area of face color was used in a color adjustment layer set to lighten. The color range tool was used to select the areas of the face to apply the color. The mask was blurred to smooth the effect & the opacity of the layer was lowered to about 50%.

Additional curves (or levels) adjustment & color adjustment layer would be helpful. The above was just a start.

Looking forward to Brian's completed restoration of the precious image.

dle · January 19, 2014, 04:29:17 PM

Very nice, Betty. Very nice.

I'll definitely add this technique to my repertoire.

Mhayes · January 19, 2014, 06:23:44 PM

Thanks Betty, for posting your work and how you did your layers. This looks really nice and I like the baby's coloring. Didn't mean to make RAW controversial since you demonstrated you know what you are doing, but sometimes others forget and create a disaster.

Margie

Pat · January 19, 2014, 07:26:05 PM

Thank you so much Betty. It's posts like this that make the forum such a wonderful learning environment and I will definitely bookmark this for future reference. :up2: :up2:

Pat

bjtx · January 19, 2014, 07:56:14 PM

Thank you for the nice comments Dave, Margie & Pat.

Brian N · January 21, 2014, 03:37:37 PM

Just wanted all to know I haven't abandoned the effort and will post update sometime in the coming days. I think Betty's last suggested approach seems most promising.

Brian

Brian N · January 22, 2014, 01:04:35 PM

I've been working the baby and still have some more work on the dress and general cleanup but wanted to show some progress. Please let me know if things look like their on the right track. The workflow is a bit messy but in general followed Betty's suggestions, and then did some cloning with a low flow and in lighten mode. The background I blurred a bit (noise and scratches filter and some cloning) trying not to remove the traces of the wings behind her - is this approach acceptable? It certainly is better than the mixer brush approach I originally used thanks to the number of suggestions from Dave and Betty.

Brian