Oh, EAGLE EYE!!!! (Kurt) or anybody.

[kiska]

Hi! I just started on this. I am puzzled about 2 things (right now 8)). The tall chick- is that a spit curl or damage on her forehaed? AND, the lady on the left- decorative folds in her dress or damage?

Click on thumbnail. The '?' works.

Thanks.



WHOOPS! Here's the original.

[kstruve]

Hi Kiska!

Looking at the original, this was clearly a photograph that, over the years and with moisture, got stuck to the glass it was mounted behind, and that the glass was broken.  Shards of the glass fell off, or were pulled off (a no-no) removing chunks of the image with it.  The cracks radiate out from the impact point on the left of the image, right on the girl's shoulder, so those lines were not in the original image and are ok to fix.  The curl over the girl's forehead on the right is real, not damage, and may I say, quite adorable!

You've done a really good job at replacing the damaged parts of the image.  Very nice indeed.  I would say, don't try to remove the original photographic graininess of the image, because when you do the image becomes posterized and looks painterly.  The graininess is also part of it's charm.  What I would do is paint in your repairs on a separate layer, then blur it (if necessary) to match the undamaged parts of the photo, then add in some graininess (Filter> Noise> Add Noise) making sure it's set to Monochromatic.

Keep up the good work!

Kurt

[kiska]

Thanks Kurt. I always add a little noise at the end on painted parts, it really helps. I was kinda hoping those were folds in the dress...............ah,well. Appreciate your looking.............You're who I meant by 'Eagle Eye'. ;)

[VBrestorer]

Kiska:

Just a few observations:

1.  It appears to me that the image was scanned while the photograph was still under the broken glass.  You can see the glass in the original.  Unfortunately, that puts the picture a little out of focus, but the alternative (removing the glass) would have done too much damage.

2.  I think the person on the right is a guy.  I think this picture was taken in the 60's when long hair on guys was the norm.  Spit curls on guys, however, weren't the norm.  I think the spit curl is damage -- you can see the damage continuing up into his hair.

3.  If the picture actually is from the "free-loving" sixties, it is plausible that the female on the left would be braless, and that she could have been bold enough to be wearing just a sheer top.  Thus the clear view of her left breast in your restored version  :wow: (the "whoops" picture in your message).  However, I see no evidence of bralessness nor sheerness in the original.  Unless you can see it via the Red, Blue, or Green channel, I would steer clear of restoring to such a bold statement if there is no solid evidence of it.  On the other hand, maybe I'm just a dirty old man seeing things that aren't there.  For an unbiased opinion, how about some of you ladies taking a look -- do any of you see what I'm seeing?

For what it's worth.

Larry

[VBrestorer]

Kiska:

After my previous posting (about the breast, etc), I took another look at the original.  Now I'm not sure that the person on the left in the photo is female at all.  Now that person looks more to me to be another guy with shoulder length hair, and the photo is of two brothers with their arms around their mom.  I don't know who's hand is on the shoulder of the person on the left in the photo.

Boy, these restorations get tricky, don't they?  Take my advice and you might end up doing gender changes to what are really two females!

Good luck.  If you take my advice and I'm wrong, I'll deny any involvement  ::) ...

Larry

[kiska]

ACK!!!!!!!! Guess I'd better stop right now! Two TOTALLY differing opinions. Who's gonna break the tie????

[kstruve]

I agree with Larry, that the scan was made with the glass still attached to the photo - that's pretty much what I had said in my first post, only that some of the shards were missing - along with their underlying imagery.  The individual on the right could be a masculine looking female or a feminine looking male, either way, the curl is definitely in the original photograph as it's clearly composed of the same photographic grain as the rest of the (relatively) undamaged portions of the image.  It would be easier to see in the full-res version, but in the low res, the curl looks different from the damaged parts.  Yes, there is damage on the head above the curl, but just because they are in proximity to each other doesn't imply one is caused by the other.

As far as the person on the left being male, the hair style looks like that typical to a rural woman's in the 1930's.  There is also the unmistakable suggestion of breasts being shaded the way it is.  Could it be a man in the 1960's with a hormone imbalance and a 1930's women's hairstyle?  Certainly.  Is it more likely that it's actually a woman in the 1930's with a hairstyle typical of the time in which she lives? Absolutely.  To me, the woman in the center is the dead giveaway:  She appears to be the most urban of the trio and has the "fingerwaves" in her hair, which was typical of the 1930's.

[kiska]

Here are a couple of closeups that might help.

[kstruve]

Fascinating!  The "original" isn't even an original photograph.  It's an inkjet print!  Printed with non-archival ink to boot.  The color droplets have all but faded away and only the black droplets remain strong.

[kiska]

I sure couldn't 'bring out' any color. I was going to grayscale it due to that and what I thought was an OLD photo of 3 women. I'll tone down the boobs!  ^-^

[Ratz]

Kiska, I agree that the photo is probably from the 30s and that the subjects are all female. The picture is very like the ones of my grandmother and her sisters in that period and the hair styles are very typical.

[kiska]

Ratz, thanks for looking. My first 'take' was 3 women, then someone mentioned guys and I came to a screeching halt. I've asked my fearless leader, Becky, if she can contact the owner and verify WHAT thay are. ;D

[glennab]

Hi kiska

You might want to consider another perspective.  If you restore what you can of the discernable areas, I don't think it matters what sex the people are.  They could be flat-chested women or men, but if you repair the damage to their faces and hair and leave the unidentifiable portions vague, you'll have perfectly accomplished our mandate.  Any embellishments will prevent the restoration from being true to the original.

It appears to me that you've blurred the photo to remove some of the damage, and I feel that in doing so you've lost too much of the grain and detail.  I've had to re-restore several of mine because I've tried too conscientiously to remove of all the imperfections and ended up with a distressingly contrived look.  I learned the hard way that a lot of the grain and texture is where the important detail is and that retaining as much of that as possible keeps the contours realistic.  There's a fine line of judgment concerning repairing damage and at the same time keeping the character and memory of the photo.

I have to tell you that I appreciate the effort you're expending to get this bear accurate.  What a learning experience!

Best wishes,

GG

[kiska]

Yes I blurred to remove texture. The original I am working with was not in focus, thus very little detail. There's a link to it in this thread. It's not even the original but an inkjet, according to Eagle Eye. 8)

Have I left enough damage??

[glennab]

Hi again kiska

I think the important thing is to NOT remove the texture if at all possible.  Even though the photo is slightly out of focus, the visage of each person can be seen through the damage, and that's most important.

I'd recommend that you go back to the original, leave the texture, clone & heal out the damage as best you can and don't use any blurring or sharpening.  I can't tell for sure, but there are white artifacts around the people in your restoration that look like the results of over-sharpening.

I think a perfect example of not over-restoring is one of Kenny's masterpieces. (it's in Kenny's Workshop under Difficult; one of his latest posts. Maybe someone can tell me how we reference a particular post on a thread.  I haven't figured that out yet.) It's a photo of a priest with a similar look to the damage you have.  He cleaned up the background, removed damage and left what I think is a wonderful, ethereal photo.  There's not much detail, but the man's face is discernable, his robes and the light fabric piece lying over the robe are cleaned up but not sharp.

I suggest you go that route so you don't lose what little detail there actually is in their faces.  Many kudos for working so hard to get this right!

Best wishes,

GG