(http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n482/MarleneCabais/3pt5x3pt5.jpg)
(http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n482/MarleneCabais/pt5x3pt5working5.jpg)
Hi Marlene,
Welcome to the forum and your first post. I think you have done a good job on this one. I would want to keep with the original, but it is tempting to lighten up the woman's features just a little. I did a duplicate layer and then changed the layer mode to screen and then reduced the opacity to 70%. I then did a layer mask to conceal all and took a soft brush and painted in to reveal the woman's face and hands.
Margie
thank you , I am always tempted to lighten photos ...I will do my best to stay true to the originals .
Marlene,
Good first start. While you are working on Margie's suggestion I would add the ladies white jacket. There is some shadow detail there that could be brought out when you compare it to the original.
Johnboy
On her left side ? I'm not sure if it is a shadow detail or not , it looks more like smudges when I look at it on my computer .
Marlene, I think Johnboy has a point about the shadows which would be where there are folds in her jacket. You may not want it as dark, but I do think it shows folds.
Margie
what do you think ?
(http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n482/MarleneCabais/3pt5x3pt5newer.jpg)
Hi Marlene,
You have run into one of the classical restoration problems, should you just try and restore the image to what it was or take the opportunity to "improve" the image.
For this one it seems that the faces were darker that they might have been and perhaps would benefit from being brightened a little. Adding a levels layer with the mid control adjusted to 1.4-1.5 I think gives a more pleasant result.
Your background is virtually constant brightness, in real life that is pretty unlikely so a little variation there would be good
You have started on a continuing learning process, have done well so far so keep posting
Athol
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/atholg/marlene1copy.jpg)
Hi Marlene, welcome to the forum! Great looking first OPR restore, I do like Athol's adjustment, it shows a little more detail in the faces. (you can use a layer mask like Margie suggested so the background doesn't blow out)
Hannie
thanks , I will see what I can do . It looks darker , but it really isn't on the saved photo .
(http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n482/MarleneCabais/A6_20_17_3pt5x3pt5AAA.jpg)
Marlene,
Margie was correct about my point on the shadows in the clothing folds. Sorry if I confused you. I should have been more specific. Sometimes it is good to compare the detail in the restoration to what you have in the original. I know it is hard to ignore the junk in the original but it can help to keep the restore looking great.
The jacket in your last post is much better looking. Keep up the good work.
Johnboy
Thank you , I have a lot to learn .
Hi Marlene,
I downloaded your restore and the faces remain dark so it isn't the forum, perhaps your monitor?
You can use a levels adjustment layer and move the gamma (middle) slider to the left, enough to lighten up the faces. Don't worry about color or the background turning too light, we will fix that later.
First you can use a hide all layer mask and with a white paint brush make the faces and any part of the photo that you want a little lighter. You can vary the opacity of brush and/or layer.
Now the faces may seem too orange, you can reduce that some with a hue/saturation adjustment layer. Lower the yellow and/or red a little, whatever looks best.
Hannie
(http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb18/marijtje2/OPR/layermask-1.jpg)
I have a new revised photo , don't know what else to do ...
(http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n482/MarleneCabais/A6_20_17_3pt5x3pt5MC.jpg)
Hi Marlene,
Are you having fun yet ;)
Sounds like you might have your monitor set too bright. Computer makers always seem to have things set to suit e-mails and other text documents where high contrast between the blacks and whites are desirable.
It is very different for photos where you need to be able to see almost white and almost black. I have offered to help a friend with his monitor and created the attached image to use. It appears that storing it on Photobucket reduces its accuracy but you might like to take a copy by right clicking on it, Copy Image, open a new document in your editor and paste it in.
Ideally you will be able to see all the different greys, from white to black. In the real world it is never that easy. The most common problem is that the monitor is too bright so the almost white greys all merge. If that is the case you can try reducing the brightness and see if that improves things.
If you do you will probably feel that the monitor is too dark, a common complaint but it is worth persisting with, even if you put the brightness up for other applications.
You will need an almost dark room to judge the blacks, most monitors don't do particularly well and there isn't much you can easily do about it.
Let me know how you get on
Athol
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/atholg/greyscale1.jpg)
I can see all the differences on the charts , except the small chart with the blacks , there I can see only the first 2 as different .Is that ok , or do I need to change things ?
I just got this new monitor ...LED - HD .
Good news Marlene
That is an excellent result so you don't need to do anything. There is one other check worth doing, that is to see what the gamma of the monitor is.
The following link will take you to a page displaying the test chart. You need to move back from the screen and squint at it. The number next to the area where the vertical bars seem to blend into each other is the gamma, these days PCs ad MACs both seem to work around 2.2.
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart (http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart)
Try that and let me know.
Athol
looks like the Gamma is between 1.8 and 2.0
Seems a bit low, it might help to try and correct it
Further down below the gamma test chart you will see a mention of Quickgamma. It only works on a PC, I used it on a previous monitor and it seemed to do the job
Not familiar about what to do if you are using a Mac. A google search for "mac gamma adjust" brought up lots of hits and it seemed that, depending on the version of operating system there may be some ability to make correction without additional software. Perhaps one of our members may have a suggestion.
Athol
Edit Had another thought while giving the dog a swim, it's a tough life. You mentioned a new monitor, did it come with software and have you installed it?
A
thanks , I downloaded the Quick Gamma and installed it .
I use a Windows Pc .
Marlene, one of the best gadgets I bought a few years ago is the Huey calibrator.
I got the cheapest version (expensive version, Huey Pro, has more elaborate software but exact same hardware) and it does an amazingly good job for the price.
Sometimes when the time between calibrations has been too long I find that my eyes deceive me and initially I don't like the result. That is because your eyes can deceive you and make you think that you see the wrong colors. After about a day or so your eyes adjust. If you flip back and forth between the before and after then you can really tell the difference!
I always turn off the "ambient light" adjustment function when I'm doing photo editing.
Hannie
@ Athol .
It came with drivers , which I installed and some software , which I installed and the uninstalled , I didn't think some of the special features were anything really usefull .
Here are the specs :
Screen Size 21.5"
Brightness (Typical) 250cd/m²
Contrast Ratio (Typical) MEGA DCR (Static CR 1000:1)
Resolution 1920 x 1080
Response Time (Typical) 2ms (GTG)
Viewing Angle(Horizontal/Vertical) 170˚/160˚ (CR>10)
Features Special Features Magic Angle, Magic Eco, Magic Return, Cinema Mode, MagicBright3, Off timer, Image Size Color Effect, Customized key, MagicWizard & MagicTune with AssetManagement, Win 7, Safe Mode (DownScaling in UXGA)
Looks like it is a Samsung monitor?
Had a quick look at the features on the PX2370, there seem to be lots of options for the monitor to be smart including adjusting brightness to suit the ambient light. It also supports sRGB which as I understand assumes a gamma of 2.2. If you haven't loaded the software I presume it is not trying to be smart which is good.
The maximum brightness is considered to be way too high for work on photos, the preferred brightness is about half that in a room with subdued lighting.
Did you run Quickgamma, did it lead you to make any changes?
I went the same way Hannie suggested and have been using a Spyder3Pro most of this year. Using a calibrator is the only way to measure the brightness of the monitor. It will generate a set of corrections necessary to make the monitor gamma 2.2 and correct the color temperature. The corrections are then loaded into the video card and run automatically. Like Hannie, I don't have automatic brightness happening and totally agree with her comments about your eyes deceiving you.
It costs but is worthwhile if you are serious about working with images, maybe Santa might be good to you 8)
Then again perhaps do a few more restorations and see how they go
Athol