Need a bit of help with the clone tool...

[Korky]

This relates to either CS4 or Photoshop Elements 11 (which I now use almost exclusively).

 

When a sample has been taken withe the clone tool, is it then possible to rotate that sample in order to rebuild missing bits in a photo restoration?

 

I'm currently working on a photo that has bits of emulsion missing and needs to have some facial features rebuilt.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Korky

[Black Pearl]

You could select an area with the marque tool and once copied/pasted that can be rotated.

[FUJI]

Hi, Korky,

 

I think...instead...... that if you Copy the pic then make a mask selection of the bit you want...then cut it.........discard the copy...then paste the new bit as a transparent image onto the working shot ...move and rotate the selection to where and how you want it.....then clean up to suit:

 

I do this a lot using Corel Photopaint Pro.....so I am guessing it can be done in PS?

 

FUJI

[FUJI]

You could select an area with the marque tool and once copied/pasted that can be rotated.

 

 

BP has said the same using far less words:

 

FUJI

[Black Pearl]

...and: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/965276

[FUJI]

Here you go Korky....this is all new to me too:

 

 

[ChrisLumix]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here :

1. If it's only 'half a face' for example, you could select what you have, copy, create a new layer, flip horizontal, and nudge into position; you could then tweak it to your heart's content
2. However, if you are talking about creating some 'skin' to use elsewhere, you could use the 'Pattern Maker' to create a pattern from a good area of skin, then use that pattern to gradually reconstruct other parts 
3. Or if you mean use the clone tool - uncheck 'Aligned'; then, every time you let go after dragging/cloning, the source will automatically revert to your original source point rather than moving relatively to the cursor position.

Sorry if all that sounds confusing - it's much easier to show than tell.

[Korky]

Some excellent ideas and suggestions there - thanks very much.

 

Korky

[Guest DaveW]

The only trouble with flipping half a face is you finish with a different person. Hardly anybody's face is symmetrical and that is part of our characteristic look. As an example take a photograph of a face, split in half and flip each half in post processing software to make two full faces and you will get  apparently different people, now add the original photo and you will have a third who looks more like you know them. Flipping halves of faces is OK as long as it's not for people you recognise.

 

http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol16/?pg=103#pg104

 

There is also the mirror effect when viewing photo's. We usually see ourselves in the mirror, which in effect flips our whole face. That would not matter if we were symmetrical, but means we get used to seeing ourselves the opposite hand to in a photograph and why photographs of us look wrong to us but right to everybody else.

 

http://io9.com/5929667/why-do-we-hate-seeing-photos-of-ourselves

 

In fact it has scientifically been proved the people we find the most beautiful are in fact actually the most average and symmetrical in all their features. Meaning they have eyes, noses, mouths, bodies and faces that are the average in size and both sides of the face are virtually identical if flipped.

[ChrisLumix]

The only trouble with flipping half a face is you finish with a different person. Hardly anybody's face is symmetrical and that is part of our characteristic look. As an example take a photograph of a face, split in half and flip each half in post processing software to make two full faces and you will get  apparently different people, now add the original photo and you will have a third who looks more like you know them. Flipping halves of faces is OK as long as it's not for people you recognise.

 

http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol16/?pg=103#pg104

 

There is also the mirror effect when viewing photo's. We usually see ourselves in the mirror, which in effect flips our whole face. That would not matter if we were symmetrical, but means we get used to seeing ourselves the opposite hand to in a photograph and why photographs of us look wrong to us but right to everybody else.

 

http://io9.com/5929667/why-do-we-hate-seeing-photos-of-ourselves

 

In fact it has scientifically been proved the people we find the most beautiful are in fact actually the most average and symmetrical in all their features. Meaning they have eyes, noses, mouths, bodies and faces that are the average in size and both sides of the face are virtually identical if flipped.

 

Absolutely right - that's why I said that after doing that, Korky could "tweak to his heart's content". I also assumed - but was probably confusing this project with Fuji's antique plate collection - that it was an old photograph (antique). 

 

However, you're quite right - a half face flipped to give a whole face would, by itself with no further changes, look rather unnatural.

[ChrisLumix]

 Here's one attempt to prove the point (the difficulty is to find a full face portrait that's fairly evenly lit both sides - after extensive search I've had to make do with this CD cover):

 

 

The original is on the left. Despite feathering and some work with Levels, the join is pretty obvious in #2, much less so in #3. But even with this symmetrical face, the difference is subtly clear I think - #2 and #3 look more like twins than like exactly the same person.