I need a PS GOD. Is there a Un-Action?

[Rson]

Long story short, another photog shot theses and didn't deliver them to the bride. After MANY calls, she turned over what she had.

No raw, just jacked glowy images.

Does anyone know of a way to unglow a image?

[The Loft Studios]

No can do.....
You'll have to get the originals (RAW or JPG's).....

[AllenAyres]

ugh, glow should die a quick and painful death. It looks like he took his thumb and just rubbed each face with it. I took a couple shots at it but it didn't look much better.

[ngoduyviet]

Originally Posted by The Loft Studios

No can do.....
You'll have to get the originals (RAW or JPG's).....

^ that. JPEG's already compressed to hell, with no details left in the blacks or whites, you don't really have much option. Texture the heck out of it?

[cooltouch]

I usually get rid of lens flare, which is similar to this glow, by manipulating the contrast. If I'm working with TIFF files converted from a RAW image, I usually have pretty good results. I tried to do this with this photo and had zero luck. The histogram is horrible. It's mostly pushed to the left, which is exactly where you don't want it. It appears the original photographer has already done some heavy contrast adjustments to the photos she sent you, and there is no room left to get rid of the glow because the information just isn't there.

[ChristopherCoy]

w o w !!!

[The Loft Studios]

Originally Posted by ngoduyviet

^ that. JPEG's already compressed to hell, with no details left in the blacks or whites, you don't really have much option. Texture the heck out of it?

I'm referring to the SOTC original JPG Files, if that is what she shot them in.....
I know there are still a lot of people who shoot Weddings in JPG in order to save space.
But yea, Viet, I agree with you..... this over-processed duplicate layer with a soft light blending mode with an added gaussian blurred pulled back at 50% opacity image just kills me.

[cooltouch]

I'm thinking at this point the SOTC files might look even worse, and she did all she could to get rid of the flare -- or glow, if you will -- but couldn't. Probably originally jpgs. If the above image was shot as a raw image, it probably could have been rescued.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Rson

Long story short, another photog shot theses and didn't deliver them to the bride. After MANY calls, she turned over what she had.

No raw, just jacked glowy images.

Does anyone know of a way to unglow a image?

In situations like this, names need to be named. Unless of course there is a "she said, she said" dispute going on between the shooter and the shootee.

"Know what I mean, Vern?"

[mmuhlenkamp]

Um... hire a painter or digital artist to recreate the image? Wow.

[Daniel Bates]

That's like trying to remove echo from an audio file - impossible.

[flx2000]

I was going to give her points for having everyone looking at the camera, but further investigation shows the groom is looking elsewhere.
this is one of those times when you have to be prepared for a full refund to the client, and hope you don't get sued. I never did this bad, wait, almost; shot a wedding in a club with tall ceilings no bounce and mirrors everywhere. like others has stated, the original is the safest bet at saving this, if it can be done, then i would recommend converting to b/w.

[d2creative]

Whaaaaa? Speechless.

[Rson]

I am not opposed to naming the Hack....but I am a third party just helping the bride.

I do not know the photog well....just have name.

maybe it is a sign that she can't spell what she does?

[caglejohnson]

mega fail. bride deserves it. if you dont research the product you are buying and find out if its worth the money, you deserve to get screwed over.