Hi everyone. Here's my first edit... not impossible but as you can see the original's detail has been almost completely destroyed. I have a questioni've been struggling with that you all can help with...
The child's right arm. It seems as though it's tucked behind the clothing, or it could be non-existant (god forbid). I have a few versions but I chose to leave the alternates alone for now and just stick with what I see here... after all I don't want to add a limb when it wasn't ever there. Suggestions please!
Cheers
Rob
Original
(http://i.pbase.com/o4/25/559925/1/63001675.m57yGul7.orig.jpg)
First Edit
(http://i.pbase.com/o4/25/559925/1/63001677.C3KnfnQY.edit1_11x14.jpg)
(http://i.pbase.com/o4/25/559925/1/63003298.dhBr4eDb.edit2.jpg)
i have a portrait of myself probably from that era and it has an oval "halo" for lack of a better word that makes like an oval mat.. could you do something like that on this one?
You do have a tough one - both the legs and arms. My guess is the hand is hidden in the folds of the dress. I would go with that.
I feel compelled to mention that the shading on the leg makes it look unnatural. I don't see that in the original, which looks like the individual is sitting on a soft blanket. I think redoing the background also has something to do with this as well.
You might try creating a soft, creamy vignette around the outer edges of the child (where the legs and arm fade away into the background).
Although you've done a great deal of work, the restoration looks like it's becoming a painted version of the photo. You might try layering this version over the original with a layer mask to hide your version. Paint on the mask to bring back just the areas that are damaged. That will help to retain the photo quality.
I agree with Vhansen's points. I would also add that the eyes in the original were more rounded.
Keep working at it. From the looks of your progress so far, I would bet this restoration will be a complete success.
Dave
Rob,
You might also scrutinise the area I have marked. I'm not certain, but there may be the outline of a booty/shoe in the corner. It would be the right place to find it based on the position of the leg.
-Mark.
(http://www.photorestorationtips.com/OPR/images/Boot_Outline.jpg)
Good catch Mark! It looks like the leg is bent in, and a booty (most likely because it's the same color as the dress) is there.
Vikki
Quote from: milanab on July 05, 2006, 05:34:44 PM
i have a portrait of myself probably from that era and it has an oval "halo" for lack of a better word that makes like an oval mat.. could you do something like that on this one?
Excellent, thank you :up2:
Vikki and Dave, thank you.. exactly what I needed to hear! Wonderful direction...
Mark, awesome eyes. It's tough to see what almost isn't there. I will study this.
Thanks so much everyone :cool:
The latest update. I think I'm closer to finalizing this one. I have a few others i've been doing and need to upload them as well. Any comments please hit me :cool:
(http://i.pbase.com/o4/25/559925/1/63379968.rYalrrZp.casanovam3.jpg)
I would try using a little less contrast/brightness on that white detailing on the dress as well as on the shoes. Both seem too stark white and stick out from the photograph a little. The only other thing I keep noticing is the eyes still just make it look like another baby. Try matching the eyes and mouth to the softer/less contrasty feel of the rest of the photo too and it may help. Nice work so far this one looked really difficult!
The chin looks too old, not baby fat like the original image. Very difficult image by the looks of things. I think the white surround is too in your face, and believe it might actually be light pink or a cream colour. The left knees needs some shadowing around the upper outer aspect as well, to make it more defined but softer looking like the bottom of the right knee and leg, looks too sharply cut off.
Bottom middle edge of the photo has a dark line that isn't in the picture originally.
Still nice work though.