Yes, that way of doing it with the mask, correction layer and merging etc would be a better way than the actual way I did by selecting rectangular sections in the single layer. I just used to do a lot of that in one layer. But you can see if you look up close at the rectangular layers how their colors are approximate, and you can select rather than with rectangles, with the other selection tools, lasso, etc. And, once you got the color close you can use the dodge/burn to adjust for darkness. If it's really that important of a piece people will get up real close and almost make it from scratch. From a distance you'll never know. Great fun. Been a long time. Dan
On 12/26/11, Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote: > In message <4ef8950f.6050...@pilobilus.net>, > Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote: > >> Can you recall the specifics of how you tamed the streak? > > I know that I duplicated the base layer, used a mask to isolate the > streak (so that it would be the only visible part of its layer), and > applied color corrections to it until it closely matched the > un-streaked part of the layer below. Then I merged it down into the > base layer and worked on color correction image-wide. The details > are lost in the mists of time. > >> >You face three problems: An unwanted color, an unwanted > darkening, and loss of detail. > >> I'm going to take issue with one small part of what you just said. > Specifically, the last part... loss of detail. [...] from where I > am sitting, it appears to me that underneath the green streaks there > is very nearly just as much detail as in other similar parts of the > image. > > The eye and brain are excellent correction filters and fill in an > amazing amount of detail from subtle cues. In the most heavily > damaged parts of the image, contrast is very limited. Working > carefully on small patches of the image with varous filters and > effects I have been able to get "nearly perfect" brightness and > color - but the results are distinctly blurry, in comparison to more > or less identical regions that were not heavily damaged. > >> [...] if I just select that whole stripped area and then start > fiddling things, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't that likely > create some result that is less than optimal for each of the two > sub-sections of the stripe (i.e. the lighter part and the darker part)? > > Right you are. I was only looking for a crude approximation to > guide "from scratch" reconstruction of the damaged area. > >> from where I'm sitting, there is still plenty of _real_ underyling > image detail (under the green stripe) that I would sort-of like to > preserve, if possible, rather than just paining over or replacing > outright with other little chopped up parts of the undamaged > background or, God forbid, my own clumsy attempts to hand-paint in > some details. (I am as clumsy with a brush as The Hulk is with a > sewing needle.) > > To paraphrase from Mad Max, "Accurate detail is a question of time. > How much time do you have, how much accurate detail do you want?" :o) > > [...] > >> I understand only a bit about layers. Should I be separating this > image into red, green, & blue layers and then be attempting my > repairs primarily or exclusively on the green layer? > > Um, nope. Those are channels, not layers. > > Layers are like multiple images stacked on top of each other. The > usefulness of this is largely due to a feature called a layer mask: > In the Layers tab of your dialogs dock, layer masks (when present) > appear as a second rectangle beside the first, always in black and > white. Masks have a stencil like effect: Where a layer's mask is > white, the layer is opaque and visible in the finished image (unless > it is under another opaque layer in the stack). Where the layer's > mask is black, the layer is transparent and invisible in the > finished image. Shades of gray are partially visible, the lighter > they are the more of the layer "shows through". > > Confused? Don't feel bad, it took me forever and a day to get used > to using layers with masks to repair and compose images. But today > they seem entirely natural to me and I couldn't live without them. > All I can suggest is to find tutorials that make use of layers, work > through them, and be persistent until it starts to make sense. > >> Also, if you could give me a one sentence definition/description > of "gradient masking" I'd appreciate it. > > I probably shouldn't have said that because I am not sure anyone but > me uses the term "gradient mask". That is when you add a mask to a > layer, and make part of that layer blend smoothly into the layer > below by using a gradient from black to white on the mask. This > results in the layer fading from invisible to fully visible as you > move from the black to the white part of the layer mask. > > Example: Imagine a flash photograph of a line of people on a stage, > taken from a seat at the far end of the front row. The people on > the end of the stage nearest the camera will be properly exposed, > but those at the far end of the stage will be underexposed. Just > increasing brightness to bring out the underexposed far-away people > makes the ones close up way too bright, with "blown out" > highlights. What do do? > > Make a copy of the base layer (i.e. the original image) as a new > layer, and brighten the whole new layer until the underexposed > people at the far end of the stage are clearly visible. Add a mask > to the altered layer (right click its thumbnail in the Layers dialog > and select "Add layer mask"). Click on the new mask to select it, > then use the "Blend tool" to fill the layer mask horizontally with a > smooth gradient from black to white, making the too-bright people on > stage invisible (black end of the gradient), while leaving the > previously underexposed people at the far end of the stage fully > visible (white end of the gradient). Real life example, works well > in many similar cases. > >> With regards to the clone and smudge tools, I haven't actually > delved into those myself yet [..] > > The Clone tool enables you to "paint" a continuous sample from one > location in an image, to any other location in the image. A vastly > useful retouch tool. > > The Smudge tool is for smearing pixels around with whatever brush > you have selected. Great for softening sharp edges and making > "seams" in cloned or pasted regions vanish. > > With these and other tools, remember that ctrl-Z is your friend. > Easily your best friend. :o) > >> >For a beginner this is a fairly major hobby project... > >> I was hoping not. And like I say, I do believe that if I had > dodge&burn equivalents for contrast, saturation, and hue, I'd have > already cleaned up thsi image, toot sweet. > > And for my part, I am hoping that someone on the list will point out > exactly how to do that with the existing tool set. No matter how > long I use this thing, I can still be very pleasantly surprised when > someone points out something I never noticed, or a simple method > that never occurred to me before. > > Guise? > > :o) > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > gimp-user-list mailing list > gimp-user-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
