(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_origP.jpg) (http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_P1.jpg)(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_P1eyes.jpg)
Questions:
1. Is the texture on the photo damaged from an album? To me it looks like texture & not album damage.
2. Eyes!!! Does he have 2 different eye colors? The blue eye looks so natural, but it has obvious water damage. Are both of his eyes hazel?
3. Is this a color photo that was slightly painted?
:mad: :wow:
Well darn. I took a quick look at :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color and found out that your photo has a subject that has Heterochromia. Wow. So I believe each eye is colored differently.
The texture came from the photo paper I would imagine. These photos are photographed and not scanned to digitize them.
I came up with a slightly different color than you did by using levels on all of the individual color channels. I believe your initial color correction may have more yellow in it than this one that I color corrected.
(http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k270/philbach/OPRII/phil.jpg)
Thanks, Philback... I corrected the yellow tone. I had a friend in high school that had 2 eye colors. The bluish eye also has more markings that the hazel eye. My friend eyes had similar markings also.
You might want to wait for a distributor to check with the family. IF it's the same guy but older as another photo from this family, I believe both eyes are hazel.
Thanks, Kiska
I have a lot of work on the pic. This photo is from Margies gallery, so I will not work on the blue eye until Margie tell me what she wants to do.
MB, I contacted the owner and she said both eyes are blue. I would have gone with Kiska on betting that the eyes were hazel. It won't take much to bring out more blue in the other eye to blue. I think what you are seeing is damage from an album that plastic covering the photo. I don't think the photo was hand colored, but I could be wrong.
Margie
Margie or Kiska, what's the best way to deal with the photo album damage? Pixel by pixel?
Tori
Looks like the photo album damage has a bit of a pattern, perhaps the FFT filter may be of help here?
Hannie
Blue eyes, ok. How can the only good eye turn hazel?!!! I find it very interesting. About the album damage, it make it easier to work with the photo if i do no have to keep the texture...thanks for all the comments...
MB, I would imagine flood damage. The really good eye is really not that far off. If has a more of a gray look and that is why I thought a hint of the blue would not be hard to do. I would be tempted to use the eye dropper to get color from the other eye and then add a layer, change mode to color and then use a soft brush to get the blue on the other eye.
Margie
MB,
I am going to chime in and disagree about the pattern being album damage. I think it is a textured photo paper. Usually textured papers like this are used in portrait photos because it gives a softer look to the photo. I can't think what the pattern is called. I have used similar paper with black & white photos when I was in school. Check the background and if the pattern is the same as you show on the face I would vote for the paper texture. Perhaps Margie can check with the owner again about this.
Johnboy
PS. Glad Margie checked about the eyes because I would have left then as they were. One of my photo instructors had 2 different eye colors.
Johnboy, I agree with what you said about it have textured photo paper, but I think when these type of photos are in an album with a plastic cover and then are pulled up--that creates the damage and shows the slanted raised lines. However, it could also be just texture of the photo.
Margie
Hi Phil,
You probably already know this but: On some of these textures the FFT filter helps, I tried it on this one and it didn't do much of use, so the other method I use is to duplicate the image, add a mask to the new layer and mask out important detail like eyes etc.
Then Filter/Noise/Median I used a setting of about 2 on this image I find it works better than using Blur doesn't seem to loose as much detail.
Then I just select the area with the best texture as a sample point and using the Healing Brush Tool paint over the textured areas, I generally use a very small brush when working near other detail and paint in the direction of any natural detail.
This rough example took about 5 min, just gives a bit of an idea of how it may work.
(http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1464/philmax.jpg)
Max
I came across a tutorial ( http://www.skeller.ch/ps/fft_action.php (http://www.skeller.ch/ps/fft_action.php) ) on the FFT filter with a Photoshop action. I tried it on this photo then applied the Noiseware filter to reduce noise. This is my result:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/5161427720_eb97a3136a.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29961016@N08/5161427720/)
Tori
They dont make this filter for a mac....
MB, if scroll down towards the end of the page, I have posted all the links for the FFT, Mac version:
http://www.operationphotorescue.org/forum/index.php/topic,1564.0.html (http://www.operationphotorescue.org/forum/index.php/topic,1564.0.html)
Hannie
Anyone with a Mac can download this one which includes FFT for Macs. http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/download.html
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_origP.jpg)
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_p2.jpg)
I tried to make the FFT filter work...no luck...This is what i have so far...
1. I had to use gaussian blur to remove the album damage. I lost some detail in the process
2. I changed color in the eyes. I still have to fix the bottom eyelid and i got more work around the bad eye.
3. I can not see a lapel (is that what its called?) on his jacket. There is no detail on the jacket.
Should I stop now? What do you think...if am doing damage to the photo let me know now...i don't want to waste time.
MB, nice start, but you may want to stop and see if someone who is comfortable with doing the fft could try their hand--Max? :) The problem with doing a Gaussian blur on this one is that it starts to look like a painting, but it did clean up the damage. He is looking better, but I think you will want more detail back and to soften up the shading from his eyebrow down to his nose.
Margie
This is one of those restore that is much harder than it looks.
The texture of the photo is less of a problem than the horizontal stripes that were left after the photo was removed from the album. (probably one of those 70's albums with plastic stick on sheets)
I did an FFT filter on the original and the results were visible but not significant.
Those album stripes are not regular and cannot be removed with the FFT filter.
I also noticed that this photo was a black and white and was later (badly) colorized.
MB, you did a great color correction and the damage repair is going well too.
The eyebrows need more definition, like Margie already said. The eyes were masked when you applied the blur, that is a good thing but now it almost seems like they are too sharp compared to the rest?
For the lapel you can do a search on the Net and find an example that you can copy?
Hannie
I know I have a lot of work to finish around the eyes & eyebrows...I will correct the sharpness of the eyes at the end if i am to keep working on the photo. I thought this was a painted photo & i am glad Hannie noticed that. Hannie said she could not get the FFT filter to remove the album damage well.
So, Margie do you want me to continue working of the photo as it is now or do you want me to stop? I know i have a lot of work left, i just wanted to see what you thought of the gaussian blur effect.
MB, go ahead and keep working on the photo if you want. One thing that I do when I use a Gaussian blur (just to the point that the dots start to blend with the skin) is to have two copies--the bottom layer without and the top with the blur. I do a layer mask and conceal all and then when I used the brush and vary my opacity so that I can work on the skin to look natural and not too smooth. The eyes I will not blur, but as Hannie mentioned if the rest is too smooth and the eyes are sharp with detail; it will stand out.
Keep posting and it will be fun (for us) to see how this comes along.
Margie
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_origP.jpg)(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_newnew.jpg)
Done or almost done? I don't like his left eyebrow....
Hi MB,
Somehow this version seems less blurry than the last version, it looks much better!
The left eyebrow, perhaps you can thicken it a little towards the nose and down some?
Hannie
Yes, it is less blurry! I deleted the blur layer & used the heal brush on most of the photo. I also used the blur brush around the face...it seems to help some with the lost of detail. I just notice that the photo is a little to light.
MB,
Much better!
Margie
Good, i did a couple more corrections. It was a little to light & fixed the eyebrow...I will uploaded now.
MB, it would be nice if you wouldn't delete one version and put another one in its place. It gets really confusing to see comments under your restore that really belong to the one before. I liked the previous one better for his suit. Now his suit has changed from brown to almost black and looks more painted whereas the previous didn't.
Margie
Margie, I did not replace the picture. Your comment is with the same picture I posted. The only difference on the post is that i added the original photo to the post. I thought i was done, but I can still change the color of the sweater. I used the burn tool to darken the whitish areas on the sweater & that is why its so dark. Do you want me to fix the problem with the sweater?
MB, sorry, but I thought it was different. To me the original is more of a brown and you can see the weave in the jacket, whereas I don't see that in yours and it is a lot darker. Open to more feedback as that is just my take.
Margie
Margie, you are right the sweater is much darker....miscommunication & I thought i was done...let me post another photo tomorrow with the sweater more brown. I thought your were happy with the photo....
Margie, we should have a rule that the owner of the gallery says "upload" & then we know we are done with the photo...we waste less time in miss-communications...
Morgan,
First off I was happy with what you had done with your photo. For some reason it didn't catch my eye that the sweater/jacket is now almost black. There is no texture in it, whereas the original had a very noticeable weave to it and looked a lighter brown.
The purpose of the forum is to get feedback from other volunteers. It worked well in your case as your finished version is much better than your first attempt. I said it looked good and it does, but the color is a dark shade and doesn't look like the original. As far as the idea that
Quotewe should have a rule that the "owner of the gallery says "upload"_& then we know we are done with the photo. . . we waste less time in miss-communications. . . "
First off: I never said
"upload" and second that rule isn't going to happen. Reason one being that what you posted on the Forum is a very small file and until I download the finished photo from PhotoShelter; I really don't know if it is OK or not. As far as wasting time and the miscommunications—sorry, but it's bound to happen.
Until you work behind the scenes as a distributor, you really have no idea of the volume of work it takes and the amount of emails to respond to. The distributors have been doing a pre-quality control to help speed photos to clear QC. Photos may have several revisions and correspondence back and forth between the distributor and volunteer. We do have a simple QC rejection letter and that might help us "
waste less time" and clear up any miscommunications.
Margie
Hi MB,
It shouldn't take much time to bring some some light back into the jacket with a 50% gray soft light layer and the a 5% white brush. You can try and place some "light" shadows like there are in the original and finish it with a 2% Gaussian blur. (only on the soft light layer!)
It would be much less confusing for everyone that reads these topics if you do any of the suggested adjustments in a new post in the same topic and leave the earlier posted photos as they are.
For instance: I said on page 2 that his eyebrow could use some darkening towards the nose and when a newcomer reads that they think: "what IS she talking about, the eyebrow looked great already!" that wouldn't happen if you did your corrections in a new post!
I have done the same photo switch thingy when I first started posting, thinking I saved valuable space but not realizing how confusing it can get for others, so don't feel bad!
Your restore has come a long way, this topic has been much fun to follow.
Hannie
Margie, you misread my comment on the "upload". This was just a suggestion so I can feel sure that I am done with the photo. After I read your comment "much better" I assumed i was done & that is why I uploaded. I thought it was a good idea, but i guess i was wrong. I guess from now on I will just asked the owner of the gallery if i can upload. I will avoid confusion this way. I am sure you are extremely busy. I did not mean "we waste less time" as an insult to you. I was actually thinking of me or any other volunteer waisting your time.
One more thing, does photobucket has a limit on how much space i use? I feel bad when i post to many photos.
I will fix the color on the sweater & posted again when i am done. Please discard the upload.
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_eyebrowe.jpg)Thanks Hannie, i will take care of the jacket/sweater & post it again...Hannie, your eyebrow comment refers to the right photo...that is the eyebrow i did not like...this the photo i uploaded & the eyebrow is fixed. I hope you like it, I will fix the sweater now.
MB, it is a jacket, not a sweater. In formal portraits it was customary to wear a suit.
Thanks, Lurch...I got this message just on time. I was starting to add sweater texture to coat. I think Margie wants back the texture on it, but i was getting ready to apply sweater texture. I believe that the texture Margie refers to was the paper texture or album damage texture. It took me a long time to remove the texture damage to the photo. I don't want to use the original texture on the photo since it spotted & damaged. I will try to find a better texture on the internet. I just glad i did not apply the wrong texture...thanks
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_origP.jpg)(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_lastpost2.jpg)
More texture on jacket
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/MBphoto09/Burress/BurressR110_8_8x10_lastpost.jpg)
Less texture on jacket
Hannie they eyebrow should look much better. I lighten the jacket & it look much lighter in my computer that on the post. Let me know if you like it.
Margie, I added texture to the jacket...but not the one you saw on the original since that was album damage. Let me know if you like it and if I am done with this photo.
Thanks
Very nice job, MB - except for the jacket, which should have lapels as well as texture.
Thanks Lurch for your input!!!! Hi Lurch....i am so confused with instructions...As instructed I had to remove the texture from album damage or texture paper from the photo. The only texture on the jacket (which looked like a sweater to me) was from the album damage. Aside of the texture paper or album damage there is no texture on the jacket & no lapels. I thought I had to leave the photo close to the original. Do I have to create a jacket on him? I am so confused! If I have to create a jacket, can someone tell me if this photo is from the 50s or 60s.
MB, You are good to upload. Yes, it is a jacket, but you really don't have the detail and looking at a jacket from the 50's or 60's might help, but you wouldn't be able to use other than for reference.
Nice work!
Margie
It uloaded, let me know if there is any other problem...