 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / October 2006Photo Retouching
Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for FIXING an image? I'm interested in correcting what I call "eyeglasses flair" - the reflection from the camera flash, or other light source, that appears in a subject's eyeglasses. Is there a reasonably effective way to mitigate this annoyance after the fact? I have PS Elements 4.0 (Mac) but am NOT (yet) very skilled with it. TIA  Signature:) JR Canon 20D Yesterday's news Today's fabulous photos [crossposted] > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for FIXING > an image? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have PS Elements 4.0 (Mac) but am NOT (yet) very skilled with it. TIA You might try googling something like 'photo restoration tutorial eyes'. That's not going to be an easy one, probably a matter of zooming in & basically painting the missing area... same as if there was a scratch or tear on the photo. Use the eye dropper to match brush colors, maybe mirror/clone from the opposite eye? SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for > FIXING > an image? Digital retouching? Software retouching? > I'm interested in correcting what I call "eyeglasses flair" - the > reflection > from the camera flash, or other light source, that appears in a subject's > eyeglasses. Is there a reasonably effective way to mitigate this > annoyance > after the fact? I have used the clone tool and the healing brush to do this. > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for FIXING > an image? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eyeglasses. Is there a reasonably effective way to mitigate this annoyance > after the fact? No fix it before hand. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com In article <grey_egg-A5081C.19422514102006@news.isp.giganews.com>, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: > > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for > > FIXING [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > No fix it before hand. Modern cameras have red-eye reduction settings. It is easy to touch up pics after but it is hopeless for OP to ask how to do it here, it is too basic a skill, might as well ask, how do you use the brush in Photoshop! Signaturedorayme In article <doraymeRidThis-612482.09415915102006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, > In article > <grey_egg-A5081C.19422514102006@news.isp.giganews.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > here, it is too basic a skill, might as well ask, how do you use > the brush in Photoshop! FWIW he's not talking red eye. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com In article <grey_egg-990E9D.20564714102006@news.isp.giganews.com>, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: > In article > <doraymeRidThis-612482.09415915102006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, > > Modern cameras have red-eye reduction settings. It is easy to > > touch up pics after but it is hopeless for OP to ask how to do it > > here, it is too basic a skill, might as well ask, how do you use > > the brush in Photoshop! > > FWIW he's not talking red eye. oops... quite right Greg, slack of me... I now change my advice - before this mistake gives my many enemies a flying start... :) What others have said, especially to take care when taking pic! (Just btw, with some experimentation, tricky things to do with reflections can be sorted using polarising filters.. with straight out flashes from light sources "after the fact" retouching, is just like any other retouching or manipulation, nothing special about flares.) Signaturedorayme > What others have said, especially to take care when taking pic! Agreed. My photos are fine. But I am considering trying to fix the eyeglasses flash flare in some jpegs sent me by my daughter. Thanks all for the words. Signature:) JR In article <jim.redelfs-5A947D.22593414102006@news.central.cox.net>, > > What others have said, especially to take care when taking pic! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks all for the words. If you send me one small pic I can do one for you and then write more words about how I did it in Photoshop which might assist you...? Or you can post the pic at a url and plenty of folk will help you for sure. Everyone loves to show off. (Did you know that when I tried to instantiate a live "newsgroup" with no computers, just a hall full of people gathered to chat and help each other, it was only 2 minutes old before 8 people were injured in a rush to the podium to answer various questions - not seriously, but sufficiently alarming to call it off...?) Signaturedorayme > > What others have said, especially to take care when taking pic! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks all for the words. To answer: I have been an artist before people claimed as such just by merely picking up cameras. I use artist not as a self promotion but descriptive in I can render things using drawing implements. At one point I considered doing retouch as a profession but my "vision" and desire to exert and express my own viewpoint came into stronger being. Plus I found I can support myself this way and make more than an a nameless artist. Now I am merely a "Blank" Photographer :) In any event PS CS or CSII has the tools to retouch eyes, healing brush and clone tools. Also you can clip the eyes from other pictures and drop them into place Provided the relative scaling is similar or the same in the used imagery. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> opined: > ... It is easy to > touch up pics after but it is hopeless for OP to ask how to do it > here, it is too basic a skill, might as well ask, how do you use > the brush in Photoshop! Oh, come on, dorayme. Give the guy a break. Last I knew there was no minimum competency test for participating in Usenet discussions. As long as the OP has done some basic level of research into the subject, an entry level question is perfectly appropriate. And later he added: > This suggests you are not taking seriously the idea of backward > time travel. Nor do you take seriously the authority of fathers > over their daughters. Some fathers can order their daughters to > do things - e.g. to put the cat out, to park the car in the > garage and not leave it in the street when returning late, to > travel back in time... This statements ignores the fact that parents only have as much power over their children as their children GIVE them--a tautology which has rescued the mental health of many people. ;) Oh, and BTW, the Nobel committee called. Your physics prize for mastering time travel is waiting for your collection. Since you missed the original presentation ceremony, they request that you travel back to that occasion to receive your honor. --Fred > No fix it before hand. Okay, so you already have a picture on hand with the problem that Jim described. Your solution is to travel back in time and prevent it from happening? Signature<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers <http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift > > No fix it before hand. > > Okay, so you already have a picture on hand with the problem that Jim > described. Your solution is to travel back in time and prevent it from > happening? Yes travel back in time, and stay there in your case. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > Yes travel back in time, and stay there in your case. Oh, I don't have a case large enough to stay in. Signature<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers <http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift > > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for > > FIXING [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > eyeglasses. Is there a reasonably effective way to mitigate this annoyance > > after the fact? Depends on what you use for retouching. If it really irritates me and I can enlarge it enough to paint it out one pixel at a time, I can do that. SignatureMary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar), philologist, biblioholic medievalist http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo > > > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for > > > FIXING [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Depends on what you use for retouching. If it really irritates me and I > can enlarge it enough to paint it out one pixel at a time, I can do that. Get your attributions correct! In any event I've the 1 pixel at a time crap,...its no fun. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I'm interested in correcting what I call "eyeglasses flair" - the reflection > from the camera flash, or other light source, that appears in a subject's > eyeglasses. Is there a reasonably effective way to mitigate this annoyance > after the fact? All the posts telling you to go back in time are irrelevant because you said "after the fact." Those people should just go away, because they aren't helping. That said, the degree to which you can correct the glasses depends on how much of the original eye is visible under the flare. You could try using a History brush set to an earlier state and Multiply mode to build up the faintly visible eye behind the glasses.* But if the flare area is very nearly white, you may not have enough data to reconstruct the missing area. Photoshop can't invent what isn't there. Short of looking in other photos to find the same eyes under the same lighting conditions but without glasses, you may be stuck. * If you don't understand the terms in that sentence, you have a very long way to go. You might have to stop and buy this book first: Photoshop Restoration and Retouching http://www.amazon.com/dp/0789723182 Then you will have the digital skills to deal with these situations. In article <1160956827.243659.241710@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > * If you don't understand the terms in that sentence, you have a very > long way to go. You might have to stop and buy this book first: > Photoshop Restoration and Retouching > http://www.amazon.com/dp/0789723182 > Then you will have the digital skills to deal with these situations. I very much doubt it. You need to actually do it a lot to get good at it. Signaturedorayme > All the posts telling you to go back in time are irrelevant because you > said "after the fact." Those people should just go away, because they > aren't helping. The way that it helps despite your assertion is that it stresses good camera practice versus relying on things like PS to make you believe your a good photographer. Being good at using programs means your perhaps a good retoucher no more- in the end your still spending time you should have had to. Its a valuable skill of course and worthy of practice, non the less. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com Look, I agree with you, and you're wrong. I agree that it is MUCH better to light the photograph properly in the first place. But the original poster mentioned that the photos were sent to him by his daughter. He is not the one to blame. He has to fix what was given to him. That's where I disagree. Telling him to shoot better doesn't solve his problem. He didn't shoot it. So he needs the best retouching advice available. We can go over to his daughter's house and give her a lecture on lighting, since we agree that the photo should be taken properly in the first place. Hopefully she is of an age and inclination where the advice might have some effect the next time she turns the "on" switch on her point-and-shoot with the pop-up flash. But telling him to shoot it better next time is to miss the point, which is, as many print shops know, sometimes you have to deal with crappy input from non-photographers who can't re-take the shot. At that point, it is a matter of retouching. > > All the posts telling you to go back in time are irrelevant because you > > said "after the fact." Those people should just go away, because they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > camera practice versus relying on things like PS to make you believe > your a good photographer. In article <1161039336.452360.196610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > Look, I agree with you, and you're wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > solve his problem. He didn't shoot it. So he needs the best retouching > advice available. This suggests you are not taking seriously the idea of backward time travel. Nor do you take seriously the authority of fathers over their daughters. Some fathers can order their daughters to do things - e.g. to put the cat out, to park the car in the garage and not leave it in the street when returning late, to travel back in time... Signaturedorayme Ah, time travel...I always forget about that! Touché. :) > This suggests you are not taking seriously the idea of backward > time travel. Nor do you take seriously the authority of fathers > over their daughters. Some fathers can order their daughters to > do things - e.g. to put the cat out, to park the car in the > garage and not leave it in the street when returning late, to > travel back in time... > In article > <1161039336.452360.196610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > garage and not leave it in the street when returning late, to > travel back in time... All fathers can order their daughters to do such things. The trick is in getting the daughter to obey the order. > > In article > > <1161039336.452360.196610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > All fathers can order their daughters to do such things. The trick is in > getting the daughter to obey the order. I dunno... my daughter was instructed by her father who seemed to have mastered quite the opposite trick, ie. of giving orders in such a way that none were ever followed. This masterful strategy resulted in great resilience and beauty of spirit. Echoes of the strategy of Johnny Cash's dad: http://www.toptown.com/hp/66/sue.htm Signaturedorayme > All fathers can order their daughters to do such things. The trick is in > getting the daughter to obey the order. In my experience women tend to be freer spirits then men, though perhaps less hormonally crazy in puberty. Men tend to be more destructive at that age,...mainly due to perceived lack of female attention. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > Look, I agree with you, and you're wrong. Not entirely :) you missed my suggestions to him on how to make the corrections using PS. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > > Look, I agree with you, and you're wrong. > > Not entirely :) you missed my suggestions to him on how to make the > corrections using PS. There are less expensive programs he could use if he doesn't want to buy it, too. SignatureMary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar), philologist, biblioholic medievalist http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo > At that point, it is a matter of retouching. Gentlemen, I missed the original request. If it's about fixing a less-than-perfect image, perhaps I can help. Perhaps the original poster would like to re-state the question. > I missed the original request. You didn't miss much. :) I expected to get the usual [fix your style/skill rather than rely on software to bail you out] advice, but also some helpful words. (Thx) :) > If it's about fixing a less-than-perfect image It is. It was taken using my daughter's diminutive Canon Digital Elph SD300. <http://media.buysell.com/userphotos/2635180/1112006_19720.jpg> I am very enamored with this line of ultra-small camera. My mother-in-law has a 200. Between them, I'm rather impressed. I would definitely consider this line of POS -er- P&S camera if I wanted a true POCKET camera. On the other hand, anyone with fat fingers might want to try it before buying as it is almost "too" small. My daughter, in another state, was attending an event with some colleagues, handed her camera to the unknown photographer, and a nice SNAPSHOT is what I got: Medium: <http://static.flickr.com/107/272580914_812d74a6ef.jpg> Full: <http://static.flickr.com/107/272580914_812d74a6ef_o.jpg> I consider the frame almost suitable for printing, at least to immediate relatives of those pictured. A good retouch to rid the "eyeglasses flash flair" would significantly improve the shot. I find it interesting what others have to say about how they might fix the sho. Of course, the lesson here is to have the subjects REMOVE their eyeglasses if you MUST use a flash. > perhaps I can help. This is Use(less)net<tm>. You're kidding, right? <BG> > Perhaps the original poster would like to re-state the question. Too late. However, here's the path to the original article: <jim.redelfs-3579C8.07080614102006@news.central.cox.net> Signature:) JR Canon EOS 20D > Medium: > <http://static.flickr.com/107/272580914_812d74a6ef.jpg> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relatives of those pictured. A good retouch to rid the "eyeglasses flash > flair" would significantly improve the shot. The eyes will simply have to be re-drawn. Not an easy task. [snip] > My daughter, in another state, was attending an event with some colleagues, > handed her camera to the unknown photographer, and a nice SNAPSHOT is what I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > flair" would significantly improve the shot. I find it interesting what > others have to say about how they might fix the sho. My only thought is the same as one that was already posted -- If there is another photo of the lady with glasses where the eyes are not fully washed out, then replace the eyes from the good photo. SignatureLen > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > is another photo of the lady with glasses where the eyes are not fully > washed out, then replace the eyes from the good photo. All this might be so, but it is not necessarily so simple because of size differences and many other things about eyes and glasses and the way they look in particular situations. If the OP does not know how to use image handling tools like brushes and stamps, then it might be too hard for him to start on something where there is quite a bit of sensitivity involved. Unless someone is very very good indeed, it is slow and painstaking work. I'd say to start very carefully at the flare and replace with the tones outside. You will need to do some brush work when at the pupils themselves... you _might_ be able to utilise the other members eyes. You could simply stop before getting to the hardest parts in the centre, everyone understands flare and you will have improved it without having to work for ages at your skill level. Signaturedorayme [snip] >> My only thought is the same as one that was already posted -- If there >> is another photo of the lady with glasses where the eyes are not fully [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > parts in the centre, everyone understands flare and you will have > improved it without having to work for ages at your skill level. Looking at the OP's posted image, there is not enough detail to clone from outside the flare and the flare fully covers each eys, time travel would be easier. If the OP posts an image with good eyes, I take a crack at correcting the bad eyes for free. SignatureLen > > I'd say to start very carefully at the flare and replace with the > > tones outside. You will need to do some brush work when at the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from outside the flare and the flare fully covers each eys, time travel > would be easier. Not quite so... there is a bit of detail to reduce the problem... I was getting it much better when I realised I better not spend more time... > If the OP posts an image with good eyes, I take a crack at correcting > the bad eyes for free. I am sure you are right that this would really help! Try it with the other eyes of other people in pic! Signaturedorayme > > I missed the original request. > Of course, the lesson here is to have the subjects REMOVE their eyeglasses if > you MUST use a flash. No. Point the flash at the ceiling. > > perhaps I can help. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Too late. However, here's the path to the original article: Indeed, a tricky repair job for Photoshop. But doable. But, if you've dealt with the issue, that's good. Have fun, BG >> Of course, the lesson here is to have the subjects REMOVE >> their eyeglasses if you MUST use a flash. > No. Indeed? Is it uncommon or consider poor form to ask a subject to remove their eye-wear prior to a shot? > Point the flash at the ceiling. I thought of that, except that the ceiling in location is apparently 12-15-ft high as gauged from another vertical frame shot from further back. Regardless, pointing the flash of this particular camera would also point the LENS at the ceiling. Not good. :) > Indeed, a tricky repair job for Photoshop. But doable. > > But, if you've dealt with the issue, that's good. I haven't, so now I have my work cut out for me: Learn PS Elements 4 (Mac). Thanks, all, for the helpful words and generous offer. I'll wait before spending any time on the pic in question. Besides, all I have to do is CROP the other folks outta there leaving only... My daughter, the doctor! (I've always wanted to say that publicly [as a joke]) She's the woman WITHOUT the eyeglasses. Thanks, again. Signature:) JR PowerMac G4 MDD 1.25 SP Mac OS X 10.4.8 > Indeed? Is it uncommon or consider poor form to ask a subject to remove > their > eye-wear prior to a shot? Not in the least, take several with eye wear on several with eyewear off. > > Point the flash at the ceiling.> > I thought of that, except that the ceiling in location is apparently 12-15-ft > high as gauged from another vertical frame shot from further back. > > Regardless, pointing the flash of this particular camera would also point the > LENS at the ceiling. Not good. :) If This is professional work, you should be using off camera flash, strong enough to eliminate shadows between the lights, bounce the light off an umberella hight enough up so it diffuses as if you had a lower ceiling. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > No. Point the flash at the ceiling. In which case with most cameras you get a shot of the ceiling. SignatureMary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar), philologist, biblioholic medievalist http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo >>No. Point the flash at the ceiling. > > In which case with most cameras you get a shot of the ceiling. He said point the flash not the camera. If you don't have a flash attachement then you're not going to fix the problem. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Now that we've "gone digital", what IS the correct phrase du jour for FIXING > an image? We call it "editing." > I'm interested in correcting what I call "eyeglasses flair" - the reflection > from the camera flash, or other light source, that appears in a subject's > eyeglasses. Is there a reasonably effective way to mitigate this annoyance > after the fact? > > I have PS Elements 4.0 (Mac) but am NOT (yet) very skilled with it. TIA It depends. I would try the various healing brushes and clone stamps first, but if that is not satisfactory, then color replacement. And if that does not work, simply selecting the area with the magic wand, feathering it about ten pixels, and darkening it sometimes helps a lot. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.