How to Brief a Manual Editor After an Automated Restoration Falls Short
By ImgHeal · Updated
Provide sources and precise problem notes so local defects can be addressed in separate editing software without repeating unwanted changes across the whole photograph.
Explore this topic: Plan a restoration project
Provide a useful comparison set
Include the untouched source, automated result, and a separate marked review copy. Name the exact versions and describe what improved and what should be rejected. The editor should not have to guess whether a sharper eye, changed sign, or removed shadow was accepted. Keep source provenance and relevant family comments with the brief.
Specify local goals and limits
Describe an observable task, such as reducing a scratch without moving the lip boundary. State which shapes, colors, and tones must remain. Include reference files with their limitations. Do not promise faithful recovery of information that neither the source nor references contain. A clear brief can allow a softer result when that better preserves the original likeness.
Agree on reviewable outputs
Request a working project where appropriate, an ordinary viewing export, and notes on substantial reconstruction. Compare the returned version with both source and brief at the intended size. Retain the automated result as a prior version. Clear inputs and acceptance records make a local follow-up easier to assess and reduce confusion about which changes produced the final image.
Check before finishing
- Source and prior output are identified.
- Local goals protect important features.
- Returned files can be assessed against the brief.
Continue with a related guide
Try a restoration on a copy of your photo
Keep the original scan. Upload a separate digital copy, review ImgHeal’s generated result, and decide whether it suits your needs.
Open ImgHeal