What's new

can someone pls remove the guy behind?


Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,342
What exactly do you mean, "poor quality"? Other than a slight warming that Rich applied to your photo, the quality appears to be identical to the original, at least on my iPad.

Tom M
 

mendeleev

Member
Messages
6
Likes
0
What exactly do you mean, "poor quality"? Other than a slight warming that Rich applied to your photo, the quality appears to be identical to the original, at least on my iPad.

Tom M
yup^ i know what you mean
on my computer it appears differently- both warmer and also not very well when it comes to the quality so i just hope that you
can only remove the guy without changing anything else?
 
Last edited:

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
19,585
Likes
12,057
Hello mendeleev. I had completed this edit for you the day you requested it but I became busy and forgot to post it.

It's a bit different and you may like having a choice.

DeadBodyRemoval_01.jpg
 

mendeleev

Member
Messages
6
Likes
0
that's great sam!! thank you a lot thats the way i wanted it, barely changed.
:yourock:

thanks for all also for trying and help me out :yourock: too!
 
Last edited:

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,342
...that's the way i wanted it, barely changed. ...
Are you sure you want it "barely changed"?

Are you sure you can believe what your monitor is showing you? If it isn't calibrated using a professional external hardware calibrator, what you see is almost certainly not what the rest of us see, and not what you'll get if you have it printed professionally.

For your consideration:

DeadBodyRemoval_01_Sam-tjm01-acr-ps02b_compare_w_orig-for_GIF.gif

Cheers,

Tom M
 

Attachments

mendeleev

Member
Messages
6
Likes
0
Are you sure you want it "barely changed"?

Are you sure you can believe what your monitor is showing you? If it isn't calibrated using a professional external hardware calibrator, what you see is almost certainly not what the rest of us see, and not what you'll get if you have it printed professionally.

For your consideration:

View attachment 62820

Cheers,

Tom M
dont u see the red eyes on your calibrator?
 

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
19,585
Likes
12,057
Ged, Tom used my image to compare the colors between mine and the original. There was no red eye in my image. Unless you think that he may have altered the color a bit.
 
Last edited:

gedstar

Guru
Messages
4,378
Likes
4,533
Hey Sam, I understand that, but the OP pointed out about the redeye and the only redeye I could see was on Tom's post

Untitled.jpg
 
Last edited:

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
19,585
Likes
12,057
Sorry, I misunderstood. I guess Tom changed the color. Here is mine:
Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 10.35.14 AM.png
 
Last edited:

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
19,585
Likes
12,057
Thanks Ged, this was my misunderstanding. You had it right! I had not checked to see what changes Tom made even though they were plainly apparent.

I clearly need to stop skimming.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,342
Ged, Tom used my image to compare the colors between mine and the original. There was no red eye in my image. Unless you think that he may have altered the color a bit.
Hi Guys - I did base my variation on Sam's (as noted in the file name), but, in addition to what Sam did, I also:

(a) immediately converted the image's "sRGB IEC61966-2-1 black scaled" color space, to the industry standard "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" space to ensure that everyone has the best chance to see the image in the same way, especially folks who might view it on software that isn't fully color managed or on wide-Gamut monitors (such as mine), and to ensure it is handled correctly by forum software. Perhaps this image was downloaded from Facebook? As far as I am aware, they are the only major user of this color space.

(b) attempted to recover some of the visually offensive blown (ie, wildly overexposed) highlights, especially the large central rock visible through the fence and her right forearm;

(c) reduced some of the grayish veiling glare probably caused by a slightly dirty lens and/or an ineffective or missing lens shade. This veiling glare covers almost the entire lower part of the image, but is particularly visible on items such as her pants, the railing, the walkway, etc.. The veiling flare is also visible in some areas higher in the image, eg, on the right side of her hat (ie, viewer's left side);

(d) generally evened out the harsh mid-day lighting;

(e) brightened the girl's face and slightly darkened most everything else to focus attention to her; and,

(f) adjusted the color of the grass (but to a lesser degree than Rich did) to get rid of the unrealistic, nearly unvarying, cold greens in the original and replace them with a more realistic variegated yellow-green.


Unfortunately, somewhere in the course of making the above adjustments, the red-eye effect crept in. Since my intent was to help the OP by illustrating the importance of (and reducing) the above image flaws that occupied vastly larger areas of the image, I never even noticed that the red-eyes.

Since the OP ( @mendeleev ) chose not to make any comment whatsoever on any of the obvious differences (described above and illustrated by my animated GIF), but only tersely / sarcastically commented a handful of pixels around the subject's eyes, I assume he either disagrees with them, or simply doesn't see/understand them. In either case, that's fine.

Tom M
 
Last edited:

mendeleev

Member
Messages
6
Likes
0
Hi Guys - I did base my variation on Sam's (as noted in the file name), but, in addition to what Sam did, I also:

(a) immediately converted the image's "sRGB IEC61966-2-1 black scaled" color space, to the industry standard "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" space to ensure that everyone has the best chance to see the image in the same way, especially folks who might view it on software that isn't fully color managed or on wide-Gamut monitors (such as mine), and to ensure it is handled correctly by forum software. Perhaps this image was downloaded from Facebook? As far as I am aware, they are the only major user of this color space.

(b) attempted to recover some of the visually offensive blown (ie, wildly overexposed) highlights, especially the large central rock visible through the fence and her right forearm;

(c) reduced some of the grayish veiling glare probably caused by a slightly dirty lens and/or an ineffective or missing lens shade. This veiling glare covers almost the entire lower part of the image, but is particularly visible on items such as her pants, the railing, the walkway, etc.. The veiling flare is also visible in some areas higher in the image, eg, on the right side of her hat (ie, viewer's left side);

(d) generally evened out the harsh mid-day lighting;

(e) brightened the girl's face and slightly darkened most everything else to focus attention to her; and,

(f) adjusted the color of the grass (but to a lesser degree than Rich did) to get rid of the unrealistic, nearly unvarying, cold greens in the original and replace them with a more realistic variegated yellow-green.


Unfortunately, somewhere in the course of making the above adjustments, the red-eye effect crept in. Since my intent was to help the OP by illustrating the importance of (and reducing) the above image flaws that occupied vastly larger areas of the image, I never even noticed that the red-eyes.

Since the OP ( @mendeleev ) chose not to make any comment whatsoever on any of the obvious differences (described above and illustrated by my animated GIF), but only tersely / sarcastically commented a handful of pixels around the subject's eyes, I assume he either disagrees with them, or simply doesn't see/understand them. In either case, that's fine.

Tom M
I am a girl as you can see pretty well in my photo.
and i can't see the differences as well as you do, I don't have a calibrated monitor. so i wonder what's best for use. i hope you can help me.
btw, my comment was not sarcastic. @

thank you
 
Last edited:

Top