All of my photos were ruined. Ametuer photographer :-(

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by pamela_kent, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. I have learned my lesson well! I have about 10 photos that I paid a lady to take that all have lens flare on our faces!
    She did give me my money back for most of the session, but I am heartbroken. My husband never gets all his kids and grandkids together, especially for a paid photoshoot.
    I went with a recommendation from a friend and did look at her work beforehand and thought she would be good.
    I cannot imagine not checking the photos while we were there, but that is irrelevant now.
    SO, my question is this...Can they be saved/edited? Ive looked up a million tutorials and have even tried it myself, but I only have PS Elements 14. I do have an older version of full blown photoshop also.
    My skills are very unfortunate to say the least.
    Where/who would be able to fix them for me? Ive also googled companies but Im sure all of you would know the best places to try. Im willing to pay whatever it takes within reason haha.
    Photo
     
  2. post a couple of small ones here. Pick the 'worst' and lets see how bad they are before anyone can say anything about if they are savable.
     
  3. The example photo is salvageable, but with a lot of Photoshop work involved. Here is a quick start at retouching, where I first adjusted levels (that's the easy part), and then used clone stamps and a mixer brushes to reduce flare. The faces are the hard part. A good photo retoucher could make the photos look very good, but you would probably need to pay them for several hours of work for each photo. Google "photo retouching services" to find one.
    00djh5-560693784.jpg
     
  4. Um, how could this have happened? Was it shot on film?
     
  5. Yes, blame film! We all know that lens flare doesn't affect lenses sitting in front of a digital sensor.

    ...unless, the point you're getting it is that the only way a photographer could miss flare like this is with a camera missing the instant feedback of digital, in which case I take it back ;)

    Still, film is not to blame for neglecting to use a lens hood.
     
  6. did the 'professional' NOT notice that the sun was in their eyes or chimp and verify or anything else? Seems like the answer is 'no'
     
  7. In fifty years, flare or no flare, this photo will be a treasure to the family. My mom kept crappy pics from a Kodak Instamatic on her fridge 'til the day she died.
     
  8. Very true. The general public doesn't see things the way we do. For us it's technical quality; for them it's an irreplaceable family memory.
     
  9. This is my quick attempt at Photoshop retouching. Most is salvageable as Glenn said.
    00djhs-560695684.jpg
     
  10. Let me be a contrarian here, then a partial optimist.
    All is not lost, and this is not a lost photo. It has one major problem that needs a Photoshop fix, probably because it was a film capture (an old, probably film lens is suggested by the repeating aperture's shape)
    Photo.net is full of lots of photo aficionados who abhor lens flare, but I belong to two stock photo services that absolutely love to see in their briefed photos (some at least) a certain amount and sometimes a lot of lens flare. Lens flare is not the death of a good photo either, so long as the images are roughly viewable and recognizable.
    Photoshop is freely downloadable and usable and in the latest edition, has a slider under Adobe Camera Raw that may even partly or wholly clarify the flare contrast problem and make it palatable or fix it much more to your liking than you'd ever guess.
    And you don't need to use Adobe Camera Raw anymore to make use of the filters in Adobe Camera raw, just convert the photos into 'smart objects' which is easily done. I do not suggest that you do it personally -- it's far to big a task to learn for just a few photos, but anyone minimally conversant in shooting 'raw' photos should be able to download free a trial version of the new Photoshop, identify the new 'haze' (dehaze) filter, adjust the slider and apply it, by moving it left and right to taste. I think it should at least be tried and results might be stunning.
    Although the 'haze' filter was designed primarily to take 'haze' away from landscape shots by removing the bluish haze that occurs when the wind doesn't sweep away the mist, water particles, and the various outgasses from grasses, trees and bushes that gather over any distance of verdant area such as meadows, forests, etc., it can also be used to clarify photos that just are 'hazy', say from solar glare -- here from scattering of the sun's rays on the lens elements caused by aiming toward the sun.
    I haven't tried it with this photo, but if you have the original captures (film or digital or scans), then I'd try to run the digital versions through Photoshop, convert to smart objects (or if 'raw' just process as 'raw' then apply the brand new 'haze' (dehaze) filter and see if it may not perform a 'miracle'.
    I tried it on some old landscape photos of mine from Big Sur that were simply too hazy to be shown, and my stock photo service put them on page one of their examples of best photos not knowing the haze filter had removed all the haze, but the filter does not just remove haze from dust/water vapor/outgassing from plants, and has some mettle in ordinary haze situations regardless of distance.
    Try it; you might just like it.
    And if one judges your post, nothing else yet has satisfied you.
    But remember, although Photo.net places a negative value generally on appearance of solar flare and haze from lack of a lens hood, stock photo services and advertising, book and other clients often demand just the same thing.
    It's all in the eye of the beholder.
    Not all good or great photos are glossy and show everyone's detail perfectly; a little sun peeping over someone's shoulders or head and obscuring detail can greatly help some photos, and lack of a lens hood is not a death knell.
    It took me a long time to learn that, but there it is. Photo.net members are not the ultimate arbiters of good photography, and even if they rate, their rates are given in the fishbowl of the standards of the site.
    Of course there is little excuse for the internal lens flare repeating the aperture -- I note it's an older lens by the number of sides to the 'opening' and thus suggest this was a 'film' capture' and thus because not digital, the photographer could not instantly see the problem with the aperture flare -- a sad problem, and not part of my 'rescue' above, but still fixable by using cloning techniques and a lot less work in Photoshop than would have been necessary two or three years ago.
    ;~))
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  11. Thanks yall! these are all digital pictures. Im guessing she didn't even check before we left the shoot.
     
  12. You might consider converting them to black and white or maybe a sepia then doing some Photoshop edits.
     
  13. Friends -- It's all in the EXIF.
    Canon EOS Rebel T4i. EF-S 18-55 lens. Shot at f/8 (good!) and 1/200. Looks like full-auto. Flash was on and fired.
    Lousy photographer. We need to know what we are doing before doing precious photos for pay.
     
  14. Yes she was a lousy photographer. I was literally sobbing when I saw these messed up photos. Actually, I noticed that there were very crucial shots she had taken that were missing when she sent me the CD of about 14 pictures. There were only 7 actually, because the other 7 were the same poses just black and white! Anyone can change pics to black and white.
    Anyhow, once I called her on it, she said they didn't turn out and I kinda flipped because these kids are from all over the globe and there weren't any of all of us together? None of him and the grandkids?
    She refunded me some money and restored her computer and ended up sending me all of the rejects. She didn't offer to try to fix them in photoshop for me either. Actually, im sure her skills in photoshop mimic her photography skills.
    Im going to try my hand at some of your suggestions. However, is there a reputable company I can try to send these to for editing?
    I was going to use these to create a family photo wall. Have the frames and everything all ready :-(
    thanks everyone
     
  15. Here's my effort at correction:
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Here is an attempt B&W conversion--Capture One9
    00dk5P-560751684.jpg
     
  17. The rest can be done by careful work in PS
     
  18. Really the main problem is with the little girl in the middle. Her face is giving me fits. Also the first guy on top to the left..Maybe I could paste their faces from a better photo. At least ill try that later after all else fails. Thanks so much for trying and everyones suggestions
     

Share This Page