Attn Bambi

[debg]

Here's the Bettasoj photo . . .  Not quite pretty on the monitor, but printing as 4x6, is much more forgiving. Let me know what you'd suggest . . .

deb

And thank you Pat and Hannie for directing me to Modify, which I'm using now!

[debg]

Forgot to post original. Here it is:


And new version:


thanks,

deb

[Pat]

Hi Deb,

It's very easy to modify one of your posts, instead of starting a new one.  Just go to the upper right hand corner of your post and click on "modify".  This will let you revise your post and, as in your case, add the link to your original photo.

Pat

[Hannie]

Thanks Pat, I merged the 2 topics.

Hannie

[Bambi]

Great job so far. This one is a real challenge.

Go back to the original layer. Looking for more detail in the faces (especially the older boy and smallest girl), I use a Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer to open up the faces, then look through the channels to see which has the best detail. The Red Channel on this one looks good. Isolate the Red Channel, select all and copy. Go back to Layers, make a New Layer and paste in the Red Channel (which will appear in black and white). I like to save the full channel as an inactive layer in case I need to go back to it later.

Select the faces and the little girl's shirt. Refine the Selection, then save as a New Layer with Mask. Repair the damage on the faces on this layer, then change its Blend Mode to Luminosity. It will give you better detail in the faces before you begin painting.

Try setting the layer(s) you used to paint the faces to Color blend mode. With the repaired Luminosity layer, it should look more like the original. Use the Opacity sliders to adjust. If the work you've already done isn't quite right, paint on a new layer set in Color mode. I'm not a good face painter, so I hope others can give you more direction from there. Hope this helps.

Bambi

[glennab]

Hi Deb

I have a rather unconventional way of pulling details out of photos.  Sometimes it works, sometimes not so well.  This time I think the faces and some of their bodies worked pretty well.  I converted the photo to CMYK.  Went under file/calculations and chose the grey channel and the blue channel.  Set the blend mode to Linear Dodge (add) and saved that image as a separate file.  That way when you bring the file back into yours, it'll be RGB again.  It should come in as a layer over your original, and then you can use your blending modes and masks to pull up the information that wasn't visible in the original.

Here's what I got:



Good luck.  This is a tough one.

GK

[Bambi]

That's great, Glenna. Love finding a use for Linear Dodge. Thanks for sharing. I can use that on the picture I'm working on now.

Thanks for sharing your work, Deb. The difficult pictures help us all learn new techniques and keep Forum interesting.

Bambi

[debg]

I think I'm missing something here as to Glenna's idea. (I assume you mean use the gray and cyan channels (not blue), since you're in CMYK).
What I came up with was a layer very much like the Red Channel copy I had, but slightly lighter . . . which didn't help me so much detail-wise. I'm not positive, but your version on my screen doesn't look as light as mine. So, as a reality check, are you finding that your newly mixed channel looks notably different from the Red Channel?

thanks,

deb

[debg]

Hi Bambi,

Here's a new version. For me, at least, the technique you mentioned works best when there really is more info in one of the channels. The red channel helps a little, but not much more than the original RGB after it's been color corrected and curved. Glenna's idea was interesting, but for me it just produced a lighter red channel (which is what you'd expect from linear dodge).

Anyway, feel free to suggest whatever else . . . .



deb

[Bambi]

I applaud your persistence. This one is a toughie. (My mucker-upper machine is working overtime.)  >:D

Your latest post looks better, but still has a bit of the dreaded painted look on the faces and clothes. I'm not sure what I would do next. Does anyone have any ideas to help Deb with this?

Bambi

[debg]

just had an idea  . . .  will execute idea and get back to you!

deb

[Mhayes]

Deb, what an amazing job you have done so far. I have downloaded this one and the original is in really bad shape. It is really hard to keep good texture and not have a painted look when there isn't much good detail to work with. I think the youngest girl in front is the really a hard one. When I look at her in the red channel, I think she is smiling and her front teeth are showing. I think I would lighten up the kids a little more.

My feeling is that this may be as far as you can go. Some photos because of damage will not be able to look as good as the original. You still did a very good job of repairing the damage.

Margie

[glennab]

Deb, my apologies.  You're right, I used grey and the cyan channel.  Also, I'm pretty sure that I adjusted levels to bring up details.  Sorry about the omissions.  Battling a sinus infection.  Obviously the opacity was turned way down on my brain function.

GK

[Bambi]

Amazing job, Deb. Upload it and we'll send it home!

[debg]

Sorry folks—too late! At the risk of flogging a photo to death, I flogged a little more before I picked up your latest messages. See if this looks just a little more real. If so, I can lighten the faces a tad—but maybe not more than a tad, because these pixels are on the edge, and I don't want them to get any more mad at me for pushing them around than they already are.

Margie, my eyeballs don't see teeth. I'd be happy to do this, but I just can't see them and god know where they'd end up if I tried.



Thanks all for your suggestions and patience . . .

deb