Tobey, G

[Candice]

Posting for review.   :)

[dle]

Nice restore! While there was no huge area of damage on the original, there was a *lot* of dirt on it. That must have been quite a pain to remove -- unless you have a magic recipe for this sort of thing. (If so, I'd love to know it.)

The new backdrop is very nice. It's especially nice that the overall grain matches.

I'm wondering, though, if the color balance, particularly in the skin tones, is exactly right. It may well be one of those color space management problems that crop up here on occasion, but the colors in the restored version on my monitor and browser (which I think are handling color profiles correctly), seem like they could do with a push in the magenta, red and yellow directions.

[Pat]

I do agree with Dave regarding the skin tones which I know you will be able to just without a problem.
 
The family is going to be very pleased with this restore.  Top notch job Candy  :up:

[Candice]

As you both have pointed out the skin coloration is still a bit flat and I couldn't agree more with what needs to be done.  Input is always of value.   I think I'll head into CMYK and work more with my color, as for the background I was fortunate enough to find a good area and build with it.  The damage on the face... that took time.  Like the rest of ya, we have to strep away from the screen to see the new GOO before it gets to the new YOU!

:wow: 

[seelcraft]

It looks to me like the original was a sepia that was colorized. If so, you have free reign to color it better. I would use some blends from rose to sallow to make the skin look real.

Also, it looks like there was some intentional, smooth texture in the blue background. I thought it looked nice, and I would have kept it.

Doug

[kiska]

Definitely not a sepia. Looks like the standard "senior portrait" from 50-60's. I did the basic levels and curves with a second curves for medium gray in the top right corner.

[Candice]

Based on my first run through of the picture I didn't find a hint of sepia either, but I did do more work on the facial colors.  Oh, and let's add 70s to that list, Kiska.  It reminds me of the guys that I graduated with. 

Here's the next installment.  Facial colors are not as blown out and I also worked a bit on the background.   

[Mhayes]

Nice job. I think Kiska's may come a little closer to the coloring of the original. Doug's comment about this looking like it was hand painted over sepia is a valid point. Take a look at this link on hand coloring and go down to the the heading of "Post 1900" and read the last paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-colouring_of_photographs
I too think it was hand colored and that makes it more difficult to color and means you will color correct more creatively than you would a regular damaged photo.

Margie

[Candice]

Keeping on .... adj2   :)

[jensend]

Your latest image has too much contrast.
Here is my try. Looks fairly similar to Kiska's image.

[Candice]

And now?

[Mhayes]

Looking Good! I was about to suggest that you take your last one that has more contrast and drop it on top the one before and reduce the top's one opacity to around 34%. What I liked in your restore before was the detail in the jacket's collar and now this version has it back.  :up:

Margie

[Candice]

That's what did and will do again.  It's one of the many steps I like to do, Margie. I find that each time I bring a layer over another, brings more things.  But for tonight, it's lights out!

[Candice]

Final work.

[lurch]

For future reference, facial skin is most red on cheeks, nose, and sometimes chin.