yet another eye problem

[zinger]

I am asking for help right off the bat with this one. When I saw this in the download library, I thought there may be enough information to work with. I believe if you don't get the eyes correct, the value of the photo is lost. I really want to get this one pegged but I can't seem to extract as much information to feel comfortable.

Here is a 100% crop of the 8x10



I have tried everything in my toolbox, RGB channels, CMYK channels, LAB, super saturation, Blending Modes etc. but can't reveal much more detail. I am afraid if I try to recreate the eyes it may look OK to me but not look anything like the subject.

Chris, I looked to see if there were any other photos in the download section but none of the remaining ones seemed to match this gentleman. ( HebertL6_2_8x10.jpg )

Thanks for your attention.

[klassylady25]

Please, could you post the face in its entirety?

[zinger]

That makes sense to load up a full version, but since this an 8x10 I reduced for display here. As you can see there is nothing sharp in this image or well defined to begin with. I can see more of what I think are the features in his eyes when looking at the whole image rather than zooming in. I have sketched out on another layer what I think his features are but when I zoom in at 100% to start working on it it doesn't look right.

I also think this a hand tinted portrait. My plan is to work this photo in gray scale and then hand tint.

[Hannie]

Jeff, you sure picked a doozy! No matter what I try I can't get any more info in the eyes either. 
And it is true, the eyes are the most important in a portrait, then the mouth, nose and ears. 

I'm sorry but the only "help" I can offer is to tell you what I would do in this case. 
It takes a long time but I would try and clone little bits of eye that are still visible into the missing parts, stopping often to step back and compare the resullt with the original photo. 
Also I would use different parts of the skin to clone and fill up the missing skin and hair.
The real challenge I think is the mouth, wouldn't know how to reconstruct that without it being my own interpretation of what it once was.

Overall, I would keep the photo very soft and put some emphasis on the eys, nose mouth and ears by means of a little burn. 
I prefer working that way to prevent the dreaded painted look, it does leave the photo somewhat blurry and it may be necessary to make the print smaller than the original.

It isn't much, can't even give you an example of what I mean because it is so much work!
I hope someone else will come up with a better suggestions!

:loveit:

Hannie

[kiska]

I think this is the same guy. Maybe you can work with it.

http://www.operationphotorescue.org/forum/index.php/topic,1455.msg15284.html#msg15284

[klassylady25]

Working in greyscale helped but I took first duplicated the layer, green layer was best (to me), did levels correction and then brought it over the original, changed the layer to luminosity, made a new layer (ctrl alt E), changed layer to greyscale and worked from there.   I agree that if you hand tint work on that last and work in CMYK. 

Any way you can see what I've tried and the eyes have it! 

Candice ;)

[cmpentecost]

I think Kiska is correct, as both photos are from the same order.  I'll see if I can contact the family.  I recently heard from the grandson to tell me his grandmother, who owns the photos, was going to be moving.  Maybe they have another photo similar to the younger man.  I'm not going to hold my breath, but I can try!

Chris

[zinger]

All that stuff helps, thanks everyone.

Kiska I think that is him.

Klassylady - yes the green channel is my best friend on this one. I think a great deal of my problem is working on this at 100% as I normally do. I can see more detail at about 66%.

I'll keep pushin those pixels.

[klassylady25]

That's the way to win the race!

Candice