Need advice please

ohfer · October 29, 2011, 11:22:34 AM

Bambi is probably starting to wonder what happened with this pic ... I got carried away a couple of times and had to go back to earlier saves. I know it's not ready yet but it's getting close. Some questions:

1. I think the photo was a bit underexposed to begin with given that it looks like the sun was directly overhead, but I'm no expert in photos with this kind of damage. Should I try to lighten it up or leave it as it currently is? And do I need to leave the white border on?

2. Do you see anything glaring that still needs to be corrected? Anything that doesn't look right, or that I messed up? There's still some dirt and clone marks that need to be taken care of.

3. What is the deal with Photobucket? Not only is my working version lighter on the uploaded one--and the girl looks really washed out--than it is on my computer, it's saved the original and working versions as different sizes even though I haven't changed the size at all. >:(

Any suggestions, criticism, tips, etc. are much appreciated!

Original:

Working:

Mhayes · October 29, 2011, 02:56:37 PM

Hi Ohfer,

What a great clean up!

1. Yes, it does look underexposed and while we try to keep to the original; I see no problem with lightening up around their faces. What I did was a Shadow Highlight Adjustment to a duplicate layer in case I wanted to either mask or lower the opacity and combine with the bottom layer. I really didn't have to do anything.

2. Looks good and go back and clean up where you see dirt and fix the clone marks and I think you are good to go.

3. I'm not sure this is a Photobucket problem, but rather how the photos shows up on your web browser. We have had several photos that did not look right on the Web, but were fine when view on the computer.

Margie

ohfer · November 06, 2011, 06:25:06 PM

Thanks, Margie. I haven't forgotten about this ... 1. real life has intruded, and 2. this thing is either kicking my butt or I'm being overly perfectionistic, which is something I can easily slip into.

I haven't gotten to lightening up the kids yet. I'm hung up on the jet, particularly on the intake vent (the raised area at the right of the pic), and the area right in front of it which has thousands of tiny vent holes. You can't see it at this size, but at working size there is SO MUCH DIRT I'm thinking about starting up my own Missouri garden in Ohio. There is not a millimeter of the area below the lettering that is free of it, so I can't pick a clean area and heal or clone. It's not as obvious on Photobucket as it is on my working copy.

So am I being too picky? If not, can you give me any ideas on how to work those areas? I wanted to finish this up today but unfortunately I'm not going to. I've made some headway, but now I've been looking at it for so long that I really need some fresh eyes.

Thanks!

Original:

Working:

Mhayes · November 07, 2011, 12:31:24 AM

Hi Ohfer,

I would lighten up your photo and upload it to your distributor and get their thoughts on what to do next. Is there a chance this wasn't flood damage, but rather dirt around the intake vent?

Margie

ohfer · November 07, 2011, 07:46:13 AM

Thanks, Margie! I will do that this evening when I get home from work.

Edited to add: It looks to me like the dirt is on the pic rather than in it, but that possibility hadn't occurred to me. I could very well be wrong.

Bambi · November 08, 2011, 06:52:01 PM

Have to admit I was baffled earlier. Lynette uploaded the photo and I promised to see what I could do.

The noise was uneven in the original and the WIP, so I opened the file in Camera Raw and reduced the Luminosity until it looked more uniform. (Beware: Opening files in Camera Raw changes the file to 240 ppi and changes the size of the image. Using Image Size with Resample Image unchecked, return the image to 300 ppi.)

It looked like the WIP had been sharpened, so I softened the edges with a small Blur brush set at 55%. I made the blue sky in the upper left match the clouds to the right. Used the Clone and Blur tools to fix the damage in the top right corner.

Finally, selected the children and brightened them with a Curves adjustment layer.

Bambi

Mhayes · November 08, 2011, 10:07:53 PM

Bambi,

I know that Camera Raw opens to a default of 240 dpi and that for a photo shot in Raw, you can use the pull down box to change the dip to 300. However, I don't know if that is possible to use the pull down for a change when the original is a jpg?

I also learned the hard way that the 300 dpi was set from there on out, until the day I was opening Raw files from my friend's card to correct. With a different camera, it went back to the default and I had to redo about 20 photos. :P

Looks like you found the right solution!

Margie

Bambi · November 09, 2011, 01:15:07 AM

I never used it before CS5 and don't recommend it for earlier versions. I make a copy as a JPEG and open it in Camera Raw. There is a new panel that controls Luminosity Noise and Color Noise separately. I make only that one adjustment, convert to a PSD, change it back to 300 ppi and drag it back into my working PSD as a New Layer. That way I don't do any permanent changes to the original working PSD and can use the History Brush to restore any areas as needed.

This feature is much better in CS5, but it is still a very fine adjustment and I only use it when the Color Noise and Luminosity Noise in a picture are extreme. Even then, it's easy to make the picture too flat and too blurred if you don't use it gently.

Bambi

Hannie · November 09, 2011, 06:20:30 AM

If the photo is too flat you can compensate this some by copying (in this case) the red channel layer and pasting it as top layer in overlay mode at about 30% opacity.
You will have to adjust the blues and reds some after but it will give a gentle contrast.

We would like to stress that photos should not be sharpened. Any sharpening needed will be done by QC before the photo goes to printer.

Hannie

ohfer · November 09, 2011, 01:30:47 PM

I'm just glad I wasn't the only one baffled! :)

Thanks so much, Bambi! Both versions are an improvement, but I really like how Hannie's pops. I'm a little confused though ... if we're not supposed to change the photo, why darken the blue sky seen through the break in the clouds?

Hannie · November 09, 2011, 02:51:30 PM

Your are right Ohfer, in the original on the left there is a patch of clear blue sky that should stay. I am wondering about the clouds on the right side. Are they purple like rain clouds or is it damage and should they be blue?

Hannie

Bambi · November 09, 2011, 03:09:38 PM

I like Hannie's better, too. I couldn't tell if the sky and clouds should be darker, lighter, or stay the same. Hannie's version is much brighter and cleaner. (She's my hero, by the way.) :hug:

ohfer · November 12, 2011, 03:42:52 PM

Thanks Bambi and Hannie, I will get this wrapped up ASAP.

I just saw where someone said it looked like the photo had been sharpened--I did not sharpen it either with the filter or the tool. I used the color correction and healing brushes and clone stamp, and curves and levels, but nothing else. Do you have any idea what could have caused that effect?

Bambi · November 12, 2011, 03:50:18 PM

There is so much noise in the original, it might just look sharpened. We take every opportunity to remind members not to sharpen the images because it's a common mistake. You've done an amazing job on this one, Lynette. It's truly challenging.

Bambi

ohfer · November 17, 2011, 06:45:12 PM

I abjectly apologize for how long this is taking me. It's going way outside my experience now, which I'm glad for because I'm learning, but on the other hand it makes me very slow. :-[

Bambi, how did you open it in camera raw when it isn't one?

I haven't done much at all with channels over the years, but I found a tutorial in that wonderful tutorial thread that showed me how to do what Hannie did ... realizing afterward, of course, that without duplicating your work in camera raw mode it doesn't look nearly as good as her version.

Thanks ...