Please help with restoration project

"Jake" wrote in message

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/

As Kingdom says over on ‘adobe.Photoshop.windows’
This is one picture that does not seem worth starting on!!

It looks like a painting of some sort, or as if the photograph has been quite heavily overpainted (they were often hand-tinted in those days. As is often said on this newsgroup, you cannot replace detail that is not there in the first place!

The new tie, by the way, now stands out like a sore thumb, it was probably two separate parts before, not one piece with a white stripe!! other than that you seem to have gone as far as you can?

Harry

"Harry Limey" <harrylimey[@]lycos.co.uk> wrote in message

"Jake" wrote in message

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/

As Kingdom says over on ‘adobe.Photoshop.windows’
This is one picture that does not seem worth starting on!!
It looks like a painting of some sort, or as if the photograph has been quite heavily overpainted (they were often hand-tinted in those days. As

is

often said on this newsgroup, you cannot replace detail that is not there

in

the first place!

The new tie, by the way, now stands out like a sore thumb, it was probably two separate parts before, not one piece with a white stripe!! other than that you seem to have gone as far as you can?

Harry

Thanks for your reply. I didn’t have a choice NOT to start on it. Long story, but there was no way I could let this person’s family heirloom continue to deteriorate, and money is not a major issue with this client. She’s been doing business with my family’s antique refinishing and restoration business for 15 years.

It’s a very interesting photograph. I’ve heard several "experts" describe how it was likely done, and they don’t necessarily agree with one another. The only part of the photo not heavily painted is the face. This is obvious when you apply a large Levels adjustment to the picture. The face comes to life (albeit in strange, unusable shades and contrasts), while the rest of the photo stays pretty much the same.

As for the tie, I had little to work with, but you’re not seeing it correctly. In my opinion (perhaps I’m wrong), the tie is a one-piece ribbon type, tied in a bow with two long tails. The "white stripe" you’re seeing is the shirt showing between the two hanging tie tails. Do you disagree with this? I’m open to suggestions. That tie was one of the most frustrating parts of the project.

jm

"Jake" wrote in message

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it with
a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m charging
I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can invest a
little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out the texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his forehead is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over blurred
layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting it.

I think you’ve done a fantastic job with very little to work with and not sure I can help, but here goes. The best results I’ve had with "pebbly" textures are from isolating the face as a separate layer, then using a small brush to very gently smear, being careful not to go too far at once or to overlap very much – then reduce opacity of the layer. Sometimes median filter too – but I suspect you’ve tried it.

Flo

"Flo Nelson" wrote in message

"Jake" wrote in message

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it with
a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m charging
I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can

invest

a
little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out

the

texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his

forehead

is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over blurred
layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting

it.

I think you’ve done a fantastic job with very little to work with and not sure I can help, but here goes. The best results I’ve had with "pebbly" textures are from isolating the face as a separate layer, then using a

small

brush to very gently smear, being careful not to go too far at once or to overlap very much – then reduce opacity of the layer. Sometimes median filter too – but I suspect you’ve tried it.

Flo

Thank you, Flo. This is exactly what I’m looking for – any ideas that might strike a little inspiration in me from a different angle. Could you please elaborate a little on the "smear" technique and also the median filter? Wit hout firing up Photoshop and taking a look, I’m not sure I’ve used that filter before.

Thank you,

jm

"Jake" wrote in message

Could you please

elaborate a little on the "smear" technique and also the median filter? Wit
hout firing up Photoshop and taking a look, I’m not sure I’ve used that filter before.

Median is under the noise filters but instead of adding noise, it decreases it. I think it averages pixels within a certain radius and blends them together – the effect is of the image being smoothed. (very good for getting rid of background patterns such as a scan of a photo on textured paper when you don’t want the texture). I would do it on a separate layer so you can blend it with the photo.

The smear tool is on the toolbar – you pretty much just have to take it for a run. Similarities to median in that it blends pixels, but you can apply it more selectively. Downside is you can’t cover large areas at once like you can with the median filter (well, you could, of course, but it would make a big mess). Think of it as having 2 colors of wet paint on a canvas and you’re trying to blend their edges together smoothly.

Flo

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:43:05 GMT, "Jake" wrote:

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it with a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m charging I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can invest a little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out the texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his forehead is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over blurred layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting it.
All input welcome and appreciated.

ISTM you’re not really an expert at this, although you’ve done a reasonable job so far. I don’t mean this to be rude, but other than purchasing a copy of Karen Eismann’s Photoshop Restoration and Retouching, reading it from cover to cover and trying again, or subcontracting the work to a professional, I don’t think you are likely to make it much better.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:43:05 GMT, "Jake" wrote:

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it

with

a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m

charging

I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can invest

a

little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out the texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his

forehead

is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over

blurred

layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting

it.

All input welcome and appreciated.

ISTM you’re not really an expert at this, although you’ve done a reasonable job so far. I don’t mean this to be rude, but other than purchasing a copy of Karen Eismann’s Photoshop Restoration and Retouching, reading it from cover to cover and trying again, or subcontracting the work to a professional, I don’t think you are likely to make it much better.

What does this post mean? Really. While I don’t have the slightest problem with you expressing opinions on the work so far, it’s not what I asked for and it doesn’t get me any closer to improving the specific part I mentioned. I have Eismann’s book (it’s Katrin, not Karen), and I have read it cover to cover, although I’ve by no means practiced and employed all her techniques. Besides, reading a book is not necessarily going to prepare me or anyone else to conquer all the challenges presented by such a project. That’s why I came here and asked a very specific question. Of the responses I’ve received, only Flo offered a real suggestion. I’m not being argumentative, and I’m not saying your perspective isn’t of value to me. In fact, I suspect it is. But I need something to work with. Some specific information. If you’ve got it, I’d really like to get it from you.

By "I don’t think you are likely to make it much better," what do you mean exactly? "Trying again" is what this or any other endeavor is all about. My master file has all my unaltered layers, so employing a new technique (or a hundred of them) is not a major undertaking. Point me to the weakness(es) you see, and tell me if you’re aware of a method (in Eismann’s book or elsewhere) that would help. I’ll study it, I’ll get control over it, and I’ll use it on this project.

By the way, don’t be too confident that "subcontracting the work to a professional" will get the desired result. The very fact that I’m working on this thing is the result of a complete hack job by the only "professional" that would take the job on. Again, not being argumentative, but I promise you, the owner of this photograph is much better off having a non-expert like me working on it than an advertised "professional" that slapped a few PS filters on it and then tried to collect $1700. I truly and sincerely care about doing the best possible job that I’m capable of for this person – and I’m willing to do pretty much whatever I have to do. Getting help, however, has proven difficult.

jm

Jake,

Have you tried the following yahoo group?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PhotoshopForRetouching/

And here’s an idea re your image: try posing someone with a similar appearance in similar lighting, and use the clone tool to copy general features and shading.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Jake,

Have you tried the following yahoo group?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PhotoshopForRetouching/

And here’s an idea re your image: try posing someone with a similar appearance in similar lighting, and use the clone tool to copy general features and shading.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Mike,

Thank you. Sincerely. One excellent piece of information and one excellent suggestion. The suggestion re using a model of similar appearance really got my wheels spinning. I did that on another project to very good effect. However, this picture is so different, with its "painted" or "drawn-in" quality. Do you think I could render the model’s texture close enough to use as a cloning sample? You know, now that I think about it, I did something very similar on the project in question. I was not able to reconstruct the original ear. The one you see was "borrowed" from my 7-year-old son!

jm

Jake wrote:

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it with a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m charging I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can invest a little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out the texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his forehead is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over blurred layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting it.
All input welcome and appreciated.

Sometimes Photoshop is just not the best solution.
This is a photo you say but I see a drawing, nothing you will do in Photoshop will make it look like a photograph, there is no texture to start with.
However, you can clearly recognize the features of that man and any good portraitist will have no difficulties making you a nice clean looking piece of artwork your client will love. There are thousands of cheap but really good portraitists working on the streets in tourist places all over the world.
And if your client wants a "photo" you can always scan the image and print it on photo paper.
You spend $20, you make a good profit AND your client is happy! Life is good!

Stephan

"Hecate" wrote in message

I don’t mean this to be rude,

Yes you did.

"Jake" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Jake,

Have you tried the following yahoo group?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PhotoshopForRetouching/

And here’s an idea re your image: try posing someone with a similar appearance in similar lighting, and use the clone tool to copy general features and shading.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Mike,

Thank you. Sincerely. One excellent piece of information and one

excellent

suggestion. The suggestion re using a model of similar appearance really got my wheels spinning. I did that on another project to very good

effect.

However, this picture is so different, with its "painted" or "drawn-in" quality. Do you think I could render the model’s texture close enough to use as a cloning sample? You know, now that I think about it, I did something very similar on the project in question. I was not able to reconstruct the original ear. The one you see was "borrowed" from my 7-year-old son!

jm

I think you’re doing a pretty good job.
Since restoration is always a time intensive project, how far do you go while keeping it cost effective? How much does the customer want to pay?

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:17:34 GMT, "Jake" wrote:

ISTM you’re not really an expert at this, although you’ve done a reasonable job so far. I don’t mean this to be rude, but other than purchasing a copy of Karen Eismann’s Photoshop Restoration and Retouching, reading it from cover to cover and trying again, or subcontracting the work to a professional, I don’t think you are likely to make it much better.

What does this post mean? Really. While I don’t have the slightest problem with you expressing opinions on the work so far, it’s not what I asked for and it doesn’t get me any closer to improving the specific part I mentioned. I have Eismann’s book (it’s Katrin, not Karen), and I have read it cover to cover, although I’ve by no means practiced and employed all her techniques. Besides, reading a book is not necessarily going to prepare me or anyone else to conquer all the challenges presented by such a project. That’s why I came here and asked a very specific question. Of the responses I’ve received, only Flo offered a real suggestion. I’m not being argumentative, and I’m not saying your perspective isn’t of value to me. In fact, I suspect it is. But I need something to work with. Some specific information. If you’ve got it, I’d really like to get it from you.
By "I don’t think you are likely to make it much better," what do you mean exactly? "Trying again" is what this or any other endeavor is all about. My master file has all my unaltered layers, so employing a new technique (or a hundred of them) is not a major undertaking. Point me to the weakness(es) you see, and tell me if you’re aware of a method (in Eismann’s book or elsewhere) that would help. I’ll study it, I’ll get control over it, and I’ll use it on this project.

I mean that the way you are approaching this doesn’t seem correct to me. But that’s just my opinion.

Let me explain. On a restoration project the first question you have to ask yourself is what do I, or the client, want as an end result. In this case the image has heavily faded. Is this what the client wants an end result? Or do they want a more natural result? You really need to try and increase the tonal range of the image.

Further, if you can get the facial features to look better (i.e. sharper, but then get resulting colour shifts, you have to start asking yourself what’s more important. After all, the colour shifts can easily be fixed. To do so, you just need to mask the face to get the extra detail, save the mask, use the mask again, and solve the colour shifts.

ISTM, that the original was sepia toned but that the toning is getting in the way of the detail. I think you would be better making the image more neutral and adding the toning back at a later stage.

Finally, the tie has been "restored" to such an extent that it’s the main focal point of the image – your eyes can’t help but look straight there. You really need to get the face right to the exclusion of everything else. If you can make the face as good as possible, then you can tack;le other parts of the picture. This is a photo of a relative. The client could acre less about the neckware. In other words, yes, start again. Get the face right first. In any portrait that is *the most important part of the picture.

By the way, don’t be too confident that "subcontracting the work to a professional" will get the desired result. The very fact that I’m working on this thing is the result of a complete hack job by the only "professional" that would take the job on. Again, not being argumentative, but I promise you, the owner of this photograph is much better off having a non-expert like me working on it than an advertised "professional" that slapped a few PS filters on it and then tried to collect $1700. I truly and sincerely care about doing the best possible job that I’m capable of for this person – and I’m willing to do pretty much whatever I have to do. Getting help, however, has proven difficult.

I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience, but a professional would not work in the way that you have stated. Ergo, regardless of what the idiot charged, he/she was no professional.

Anyway, as I’ve already said, your starting point should be the face, get that right and the client won’t even notice if the rest isn’t as good.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:32:59 -0400, "Scruff" <Get @ Grip> wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

I don’t mean this to be rude,

Yes you did.

Ah, you’re a mind reader now as well. How clever. If I wanted to be rude I’m sure you would be able to tell, asshole.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:32:59 -0400, "Scruff" <Get @ Grip> wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

I don’t mean this to be rude,

Yes you did.

Ah, you’re a mind reader now as well. How clever. If I wanted to be rude I’m sure you would be able to tell, asshole.

Not a mind reader. Any one who makes a statement with the caveat, "I don’t mean to be…….", means exactly that, dryhole.

Hecate wrote:

, asshole.

Did she, really?
😉

Stephan

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:48:31 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

, asshole.

Did she, really?
😉

LOL! Right before I plonked the idiot to leave him go play with his nice friend noname. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Jake wrote:

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it with a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m charging I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can invest a little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out the texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his forehead is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over blurred layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting it.
All input welcome and appreciated.

Are you sure that it’s a photo and not a photo of artwork or a photo that was painted over to resemble artwork? The heavily-damaged original looks like art, not a photograph, especially the suit but even the fair (particularly the nose and eyes) look painted.

Since there is so much loss of detail in the face, that is where you’re going to have to put the most effort. This is a long shot but you might want to try making a copy of the head only on a layer from the original and then using multiply as the blending mode to see what sort of detail comes from such a blend. Sometimes multiply will show you things you might not see otherwise. It also may show you were, in restoring the face, you brushed out some detail.

You’ll see the damage as well, of course, but you may be able to get an idea where detail has been lost. You can probably restore some of that detail by cloning certain parts or keeping portions of the damaged original on another layer and masking out the damaged parts by painting on a layer mask of the copied head. You can vary the opacity to adjust the effect. Since the face also looks too light, this may help bring it up to a level more in tune with the suit jacket and tie.

I’d also try to work on the shading of the edges of the face. The right side seems blotchy and patchy with light and dark in a way which doesn’t reflect a light source. You’ll want to determine where the light was coming from when the "photo" was taken (if it is a photo) and fix the shading on the face to accurately reflect the lighting. You can do that using a variety of methods but I’d try dodging and burning first just to save having to paint in more.

You’ve actually done a really good job so far. I think that you’re working from a fairly poorly preserved original photo or a somewhat poorly done bit of artwork. There’s only so much you can do with it.

Orchid

"Stephan" wrote in message

Jake wrote:

If you don’t mind assisting with a restoration project I’m doing, please view this link: http://home.midsouth.rr.com/mitchellsmith/
This is a late-19th century photo developed at 16×20 inches, and badly damaged over the years. It’s on a heavyweight matte (some type of parchment-feeling surface), glued to carboard (???). I photographed it

with

a 5mp digital camera outside on a cloudy day.

I’m pretty well-satisfied with where I am on it. For the price I’m

charging

I cannot work on it forever, and with restorations you are never "done." You just have to find an acceptable point to stop. However, I can

invest a

little more time in it, and I’d like to spend that time smoothing out

the

texture of the face, which at 16×20 will look very rough. I’ve tried several methods (using PS7, btw), but I
haven’t liked the results. The texture of the middle part of his

forehead

is my goal. Various blurring techniques and adjustment layers over

blurred

layers create a "puffy" fake look, for lack of a better way of putting

it.

All input welcome and appreciated.

Sometimes Photoshop is just not the best solution.
This is a photo you say but I see a drawing, nothing you will do in Photoshop will make it look like a photograph, there is no texture to start with.
However, you can clearly recognize the features of that man and any good portraitist will have no difficulties making you a nice clean looking piece of artwork your client will love. There are thousands of cheap but really good portraitists working on the streets in tourist places all over the world.
And if your client wants a "photo" you can always scan the image and print it on photo paper.
You spend $20, you make a good profit AND your client is happy! Life is good!

Stephan

You know, that is REALLY good "outside the box" kind of thinking. Having a portrait made from a minimally cleaned-up model might be the best solution. I will definately look into that.

As for just how this "photo" was done, it appears to me that the face and neck are photographic, while the rest is heavily overpainted or drawn in. I’ve been told it was likely a photograph, overpainted, then photographed again. I don’t know.

jm

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:17:34 GMT, "Jake" wrote:

ISTM you’re not really an expert at this, although you’ve done a reasonable job so far. I don’t mean this to be rude, but other than purchasing a copy of Karen Eismann’s Photoshop Restoration and Retouching, reading it from cover to cover and trying again, or subcontracting the work to a professional, I don’t think you are likely to make it much better.

What does this post mean? Really. While I don’t have the slightest

problem

with you expressing opinions on the work so far, it’s not what I asked

for

and it doesn’t get me any closer to improving the specific part I

mentioned.

I have Eismann’s book (it’s Katrin, not Karen), and I have read it cover

to

cover, although I’ve by no means practiced and employed all her

techniques.

Besides, reading a book is not necessarily going to prepare me or anyone else to conquer all the challenges presented by such a project. That’s

why

I came here and asked a very specific question. Of the responses I’ve received, only Flo offered a real suggestion. I’m not being

argumentative,

and I’m not saying your perspective isn’t of value to me. In fact, I suspect it is. But I need something to work with. Some specific information. If you’ve got it, I’d really like to get it from you.
By "I don’t think you are likely to make it much better," what do you

mean

exactly? "Trying again" is what this or any other endeavor is all about. My master file has all my unaltered layers, so employing a new technique

(or

a hundred of them) is not a major undertaking. Point me to the

weakness(es)

you see, and tell me if you’re aware of a method (in Eismann’s book or elsewhere) that would help. I’ll study it, I’ll get control over it, and I’ll use it on this project.

I mean that the way you are approaching this doesn’t seem correct to me. But that’s just my opinion.

I’m okay with that. There were several approaches to take, and I picked one that seemed the best compromise among the factors of time, knowledge, and what I think the client expects.

Let me explain. On a restoration project the first question you have to ask yourself is what do I, or the client, want as an end result. In this case the image has heavily faded. Is this what the client wants an end result? Or do they want a more natural result? You really need to try and increase the tonal range of the image.

This is where you and I probably see the project differently. Restorations include two primary factors: the print medium and the image, the latter being much more subjective and apparently the aspect you are emphasizing. From the beginning I saw this project as mainly concerned with correcting the damage to the photograph – the tears, rips, scratches, stains, etc. My client did not have the photograph when it was new. If it is badly faded – and I’m not sure it is (at least where the overall tonal range is concerned) after an exchange with a photography historian yesterday – it is not as big a factor as it might have been if my client had owned the photograph since it was taken and had watched the photographic image deteriorate over the years. What she has watched deteriorate, on the other hand, is the condition of the print. Simply put, my efforts have been to correct the damage to the print. Adding color that I don’t see in the original has not been a goal.

Further, if you can get the facial features to look better (i.e. sharper, but then get resulting colour shifts, you have to start asking yourself what’s more important. After all, the colour shifts can easily be fixed. To do so, you just need to mask the face to get the extra detail, save the mask, use the mask again, and solve the colour shifts.

I’d appreciate if you could elaborate on your suggested masking technique a little.

ISTM, that the original was sepia toned but that the toning is getting in the way of the detail. I think you would be better making the image more neutral and adding the toning back at a later stage.

I don’t understand what you mean by "the toning is getting in the way of the detail." What methods of "making the image more neutral" will bring out detail? I tried a few things, but I don’t see the correlation.

Finally, the tie has been "restored" to such an extent that it’s the main focal point of the image – your eyes can’t help but look straight there.

Agreed. I worked on that some more, and it’s better . . . not by a whole lot, but some.

You really need to get the face right to the exclusion of everything else. If you can make the face as good as possible, then you can tack;le other parts of the picture. This is a photo of a relative. The client could acre less about the neckware. In other words, yes, start again. Get the face right first. In any portrait that is *the most important part of the picture.

Agreed 100%, thus my original post inquiring about making the face better. My first goal from this point is to smooth the skin, or otherwise improve the texture of his face. Where I go from there, I’m not sure. I’ll wait and see what the methods for smoothing the texture of his face do to other aspects of the image. Not being argumentative, but you still haven’t addressed this core topic. I appreciate your input, and it’s been helpful to some degree, but my original post wasn’t about his tie, the color range, or anything else. It was about the exact thing you’ve now come back to: his face.

Thank you again.

jm