|
Recently I've been playing around with removing graffiti from old pics. It's usually not something that bothers me, but I'd like to be able to do it. In the cases below, is the removal work obvious/bad looking? They also look kind of barren to me after removal, but I don't know if I'd feel the same way if I didn't see them before. Links to the originals below each pic.
https://www.flickr...dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr...dateposted-public/
[last edit 1/10/2017 6:41 PM by DescentOnARope - edited 1 times]
|
|
Ummm, you missed one in the first image.
A before shot be interesting.
Personally I been bored of tags and most graf for decades... the best sites have none.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
Assuming that the present graffiti was intentionally kept - it's not noticeable, save for a wood panel in the left half of the first with a sort of lump shadow cast across it - may be natural though, so really not noticeable at all
|
|
Yeah, if I really look, I see that pattern repeated a lot on that wood panel on the left side of the first image, but besides that, it really isn't that noticeable.
"If a wise man disputes with a fool, he may rage or laugh but can have no peace."
Prv 29:9 |
|
Posted by [Olive]
Assuming that the present graffiti was intentionally kept - it's not noticeable, save for a wood panel in the left half of the first with a sort of lump shadow cast across it - may be natural though, so really not noticeable at all
|
Maybe that's why titled "Attempts at graffiti removal" 
Without a before image it's hard to judge the effectiveness although the images look good with no gross artifacts or obvious cloning.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
Posted by DescentOnARope
Recently I've been playing around with removing graffiti from old pics.
|
Ahhhhhh!
Great minds think alike! I had started to mess around with a photo of this place:
 Stage by Road Extx, on Flickr
with the same intention.
While I was there I started wondering how the place might have looked in it's hayday.
So I for one fully support this endeavor.
I piddle with it during lunch some times.
|
|
I too murder graffiti
[last edit 1/11/2017 5:32 PM by skatchkins - edited 2 times]
Flickr Pitchrs |
|
Thanks for the replies.
Posted by blackhawk
Without a before image it's hard to judge the effectiveness although the images look good with no gross artifacts or obvious cloning.
|
As I said in the OP, the links under the images are to the before versions.
Posted by [Olive]
Assuming that the present graffiti was intentionally kept
|
I tried to remove everything, but cases that I couldn't were left in entirely. "Intentionally" left... but I did try to remove them.
Really good work, skatchkins. That's the kind of thing I'm hoping to accomplish. You were even able to preserve the shadow.
|
|
skatchkins, nice work
Posted by DescentOnARope
Thanks for the replies.
As I said in the OP, the links under the images are to the before versions.
I tried to remove everything, but cases that I couldn't were left in entirely. "Intentionally" left... but I did try to remove them.
|
My bad... they didn't look -that- tagged
The really wide tags will require creativity to fill as the original base is obscured; no way to know what was under it.
Thinner lined tags are better candidates for an true to life restoration.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
The removal is good, and doesn't look obvious. however, I like the way the graffiti looks in the original shots too. Certainly in the first picture, it looks as though it is part of the shot.
One day I got a good camera.
https://www.flickr...hotos/fleetsurbex/ |
|
Looks very natural
|
|
#1 is good because its different and you don't know what it is so you look for longer. start appreciating the smaller details
Masculine Dora the Explorer |
Ethics
