digital cleanup of old slide

"George" wrote in message

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

http://gah.ms11.net//Scan14.jpg

Cool pic. Where was it taken?

Using your image, I just did a pretty decent job by adjusting the curves so that all the colors in the range of the dark spots were turned up to white. Other than that, I would say just select the sky and add some fake clouds in there.

"George" wrote in message

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

http://gah.ms11.net//Scan14.jpg

Actually, I just ran the clouds filter where the sky should be, using white and the blue from the picture as my two colors, and the image looks perfect

George wrote:

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

http://gah.ms11.net//Scan14.jpg

Select the entire sky and try the dust and scratches filter with a radius setting of 2. That gets most of it. It also tries to remove the wires from the sky which may or may not be desirable.

BTW, if you wanted to hit both Photoshop newsgroups it would have been more appropriate to cross post rather than sending two separate messages.
——————
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

George wrote:

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

1. Select the sky with the lasso tool or the Polygonal Lasso Tool. Use a feather of 1-2 pixels.
2. Run ‘Filter – Noise – Dust & Scratches’. Radius 2, Threshold 7
3. Deselect
4. Open ‘Curves’, select only the blue channel and drag the curve down to get rid of that horrible blue cast.

Next time, clean your slides BEFORE you scan…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Tom Thomas" wrote in message

George wrote:

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

http://gah.ms11.net//Scan14.jpg

Select the entire sky and try the dust and scratches filter with a radius setting of 2. That gets most of it. It also tries to remove the wires from the sky which may or may not be desirable.
BTW, if you wanted to hit both Photoshop newsgroups it would have been more appropriate to cross post rather than sending two separate messages.

Thanks, usenet police

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

George wrote:

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

1. Select the sky with the lasso tool or the Polygonal Lasso Tool. Use a feather of 1-2 pixels.
2. Run ‘Filter – Noise – Dust & Scratches’. Radius 2, Threshold 7
3. Deselect
4. Open ‘Curves’, select only the blue channel and drag the curve down to get rid of that horrible blue cast.

Next time, clean your slides BEFORE you scan…

Just a refinement: If you do not want to loose the blue in the sky, inverse the selection rather than ‘deselect’ in step 3.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Sir Fauntleroy" wrote:

BTW, if you wanted to hit both Photoshop newsgroups it would have been more appropriate to cross post rather than sending two separate messages.

Thanks, usenet police

I tried to answer your question and politely suggested proper posting protocol and you come back with that kind of response. Grateful little guy, aren’t you?
——————
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

Tom Thomas wrote:

I tried to answer your question …

And yes, I recognize it was his question, not yours. My mistake, and all the more reason to consider your response inappropriate. My posting suggestion wasn’t even directed to you.
——————
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

"Tom Thomas" wrote in message

Tom Thomas wrote:

I tried to answer your question …

And yes, I recognize it was his question, not yours. My mistake, and all the more reason to consider your response inappropriate. My posting suggestion wasn’t even directed to you.
——————

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost. Then there are people who don’t think you should post to more than one place at all. And you arrogantly advise others as if you are some sort of authority on what is appropriate. As if it REALLY matters how the dude’s message got into two NGs. Why does it bother you that he used a different method than the one you recommend? And if it doesn’t bother you, why mention it in the first place, to assert your authority?

And FYI, I make it my business because this is how I will always respond whenever I run afoul of someone like you.

Pugnaciously yours,
Fauntleroy

This day of Thu, 5 May 2005 17:05:06 -0400, "Sir Fauntleroy" saw fit to scribe:

"Tom Thomas" wrote in message

Tom Thomas wrote:

I tried to answer your question …

And yes, I recognize it was his question, not yours. My mistake, and all the more reason to consider your response inappropriate. My posting suggestion wasn’t even directed to you.
——————

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost. Then there are people who don’t think you should post to more than one place at all. And you arrogantly advise others as if you are some sort of authority on what is appropriate. As if it REALLY matters how the dude’s message got into two NGs. Why does it bother you that he used a different method than the one you recommend? And if it doesn’t bother you, why mention it in the first place, to assert your authority?

FWIW, personally I would prefer having the message crossposted, so that if somebody replies in the other group (to which I do not subscribe) I see it here and thus benefit from whatever advice is given. What benefit is there to posting two separate messages? I see at least one (considerable, to me) disadvantage.

—
~david-haley

(no unmunging necessary)
—————————

George wrote:

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

http://gah.ms11.net//Scan14.jpg

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I tried the cloud filter and it worked quite well. I also tried the dust and scratches filter and liked it even better. I think it looks more natural.

"Sir Fauntleroy" wrote:

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost.

There are legitimate reasons for certain Usenet protocols. Crossposting to relevant groups (on-topic) creates a single message on the servers with references to it in multiple groups. Posting two separate messages creates two separate messages on all the servers. Twice the space consumed by the same message. Multiply that by thousands of servers, or apply it to servers with limited storage and you may grasp the rationale behind this common sense advice.

How you usually respond or what "annoys you" is immaterial if it’s based on ignorance. Accepted Usenet behaviors have been around and commonly understood longer than you apparently have.
——————
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

Tom Thomas wrote:

"Sir Fauntleroy" wrote:

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost.

There are legitimate reasons for certain Usenet protocols. Crossposting to relevant groups (on-topic) creates a single message on the servers with references to it in multiple groups. Posting two separate messages creates two separate messages on all the servers. Twice the space consumed by the same message. Multiply that by thousands of servers, or apply it to servers with limited storage and you may grasp the rationale behind this common sense advice.

The most important rationale is that you can read all responses at once. I don’t mind spending time helping people out, but I do mind wasting my time writing a response, only to find out later that someone else already gave the same answer in another newsgroup.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Tom Thomas wrote:

"Sir Fauntleroy" wrote:

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do
in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that
become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost.

There are legitimate reasons for certain Usenet protocols. Crossposting to relevant groups (on-topic) creates a single message on the servers with references to it in multiple groups. Posting two separate messages creates two separate messages on all the servers. Twice the space consumed by the same message. Multiply that by thousands of servers, or apply it to servers with limited storage and you may grasp the rationale behind this common sense advice.

The most important rationale is that you can read all responses at once. I don’t mind spending time helping people out, but I do mind wasting my time writing a response, only to find out later that someone else already gave the same answer in another newsgroup.

Fine if that’s the way you’re going to be about it, I’m going to back the survivor NG where they complain about crossposting with the amazing race NG (even though there are former survivors on TAR).

By the way, in case you’re wondering, i am rooting for Boston Rob to win it all.

In article ,
says…

George wrote:

I’m using photoshop 7.0. I’ve been using the clone tool to clean up the sky in some old slides that appear to have become mildewed. Can anyone suggest an easier way to do it? It need not be print quality; just on line display. Thanks in advance, George

http://gah.ms11.net//Scan14.jpg

Select the entire sky and try the dust and scratches filter with a radius setting of 2. That gets most of it. It also tries to remove the wires from the sky which may or may not be desirable.
BTW, if you wanted to hit both Photoshop newsgroups it would have been more appropriate to cross post rather than sending two separate messages.
——————
Tom

Tom, on the point of X-posting to two revelant NGs – I agree hardily on this one. Not everyone reads both of the PS NGs, and often the solution to a problem will appear in only one. Most folk look to these groups for solutions, and they will be best served by an X-post, rather than independent articles in both.

Hunt

In article <7Uvee.9405$ says…

"Tom Thomas" wrote in message

Tom Thomas wrote:

I tried to answer your question …

And yes, I recognize it was his question, not yours. My mistake, and all the more reason to consider your response inappropriate. My posting suggestion wasn’t even directed to you.
——————

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost. Then there are people who don’t think you should post to more than one place at all. And you arrogantly advise others as if you are some sort of authority on what is appropriate. As if it REALLY matters how the dude’s message got into two NGs. Why does it bother you that he used a different method than the one you recommend? And if it doesn’t bother you, why mention it in the first place, to assert your authority?
And FYI, I make it my business because this is how I will always respond whenever I run afoul of someone like you.

Pugnaciously yours,
Fauntleroy

Me thinks you may have read too much into Tom’s suggestion – but maybe not. I often hear the "do not X-post, ever!" crowd, but happen to disagree with them in this context. If my server only carries one of these NG (PS in this case), or I only monitor one, I might well miss the answer to a good question. I vote for Tom’s suggestion here and advocate X-posting where there is a real purpose. Not all subscribers will know about it, or even be able to weigh the benefits, unless someone points it out to them.

Hunt

In article <1gw573n.vu4m4hr0zneoN%
invalid says…

Tom Thomas wrote:

"Sir Fauntleroy" wrote:

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to

do

in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds

that

become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost.

There are legitimate reasons for certain Usenet protocols. Crossposting to relevant groups (on-topic) creates a single message on the servers with references to it in multiple groups. Posting two separate messages creates two separate messages on all the servers. Twice the space consumed by the same message. Multiply that by thousands of servers, or apply it to servers with limited storage and you may grasp the rationale behind this common sense advice.

The most important rationale is that you can read all responses at once. I don’t mind spending time helping people out, but I do mind wasting my time writing a response, only to find out later that someone else already gave the same answer in another newsgroup.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

And, as has happened too many times in these two NGs, the OP will often question why no one responded to the post in one of the groups, because he/she has not bothered to check the other NG. Having to pen, "why not check my reply to your question in the OTHER NG?" gets a bit tedious.

The example of on-topic, PS questions and two similar, but not identical NGs is a good case for X-posting.

Hunt

In article <d4Kee.19749$ says…

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Tom Thomas wrote:

"Sir Fauntleroy" wrote:

It just annoys me when people instruct others on what is "appropriate" to do
in their newsgroup. If I crosspost to some related NGs, there are nerds that
become furious. Then there are guys like you who think it is more appropriate to crosspost.

There are legitimate reasons for certain Usenet protocols. Crossposting to relevant groups (on-topic) creates a single message on the servers with references to it in multiple groups. Posting two separate messages creates two separate messages on all the servers. Twice the space consumed by the same message. Multiply that by thousands of servers, or apply it to servers with limited storage and you may grasp the rationale behind this common sense advice.

The most important rationale is that you can read all responses at once. I don’t mind spending time helping people out, but I do mind wasting my time writing a response, only to find out later that someone else already gave the same answer in another newsgroup.

Fine if that’s the way you’re going to be about it, I’m going to back the survivor NG where they complain about crossposting with the amazing race NG (even though there are former survivors on TAR).

By the way, in case you’re wondering, i am rooting for Boston Rob to win it all.

Especially since your answer to the OP was well thought out, and probably saved him a lot of tedious work, I’d urge you to not stray from the case at hand, two PS NGs, with slight differences in the subscriber base, and a question that fits perfectly into both. I will agree that there are probably more instances where X-posting is a BAD idea, but within the context discussed here, I’d vote for it – strongly.

Though the problem was not mine, I did like your solution to it, and will remember it, should I be faced with a similar problem. Thanks for that response.

Hunt

Hunt wrote:

Especially since your answer to the OP was well thought out, and probably saved him a lot of tedious work, I’d urge you to not stray from the case at hand, two PS NGs, with slight differences in the subscriber base, and a question that fits perfectly into both. I will agree that there are probably more instances where X-posting is a BAD idea, but within the context discussed here, I’d vote for it – strongly.

You’re missing the point. The point is not that the OP should not crosspost. I have no problem with that. The point is that he should indeed CROSSpost in that case (i.e. one message, with two newsgroups in the newsgroup header). He didn’t do that. He just posted the same question in two groups as two different threads. That’s annoying because that means you cannot see if somebody else already gave the answer in the other group.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <1gwd9zi.1d2dhgoud9kokN%
invalid says…

Hunt wrote:

Especially since your answer to the OP was well thought out, and probably saved him a lot of tedious work, I’d urge you to not stray from the case at hand, two PS NGs, with slight differences in the subscriber base, and a question that fits perfectly into both. I will agree that there are

probably

more instances where X-posting is a BAD idea, but within the context

discussed

here, I’d vote for it – strongly.

You’re missing the point. The point is not that the OP should not crosspost. I have no problem with that. The point is that he should indeed CROSSpost in that case (i.e. one message, with two newsgroups in the newsgroup header). He didn’t do that. He just posted the same question in two groups as two different threads. That’s annoying because that means you cannot see if somebody else already gave the answer in the other group.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

No, I do not think I am missing the point. Tom’s comment on X-posting was that it was a good thing. I agreed with that 100%. In this case it should be advised.

Hunt

Hunt wrote:

You’re missing the point. The point is not that the OP should not crosspost. I have no problem with that. The point is that he should indeed CROSSpost in that case (i.e. one message, with two newsgroups in the newsgroup header). He didn’t do that. He just posted the same question in two groups as two different threads. That’s annoying because that means you cannot see if somebody else already gave the answer in the other group.

No, I do not think I am missing the point. Tom’s comment on X-posting was that it was a good thing. I agreed with that 100%. In this case it should be advised.

Read my post again please. Did I say otherwise?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <1gwedd4.9pmpv21n8la6wN%
invalid says…

Hunt wrote:

You’re missing the point. The point is not that the OP should not crosspost. I have no problem with that. The point is that he should indeed CROSSpost in that case (i.e. one message, with two newsgroups in the newsgroup header). He didn’t do that. He just posted the same question in two groups as two different threads. That’s annoying because that means you cannot see if somebody else already gave the answer in the other group.

No, I do not think I am missing the point. Tom’s comment on X-posting was

that

it was a good thing. I agreed with that 100%. In this case it should be advised.

Read my post again please. Did I say otherwise?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

I suppose you’re correct – I am missing the point. By my reading, we are both saying the same thing. I agree that this article SHOULD have been X-posted to the relevant NGs. Beyond that, I am at a complete loss, as to what other " point" I am missing.

Hunt

Dear Johan & George,

Physical cleaning of mildewed films is a very dicey proposition. As the mildew digests the emulsion, it breaks down the crosslinking between the proteins and renders the emulsion both fragile and soluble. A hydrocarbon-based cleaner may remove a little of the mildew but it may also cause pieces of the emulsion to break off, even with a most delicate touch. Water-based detergent-type cleaners can remove a lot more of the mildew, but if the emulsion is too damaged, it will wash right off! Some otherwise excellent cleaners, like PEC-12, have warnings against using them with unhardened gelatin because they can dissolve it; consequently, they can dissolve mildew-damaged emulsions.

Here’s a trick for dealing with seriously-mildewed skies that will work even with Photoshop 7 on 16-bit images. Apply a Gaussian blur and set that history state for your history brush. Step back to the previous history state (undoing the blur) and set the brush option for lighten at 100% strength. Paint over the entire area with the history brush; it will lighten the filaments yet leave the areas between them almost untouched. Apply the Gaussian blur filter again, assign the new blur state to the history brush and repeat the process. You can keep repeating this process until the filaments go away entirely, but you may not want to. If the blue sky isn’t entirely featureless and has some fine film grain, applying the lightening blur is also having the effect of favoring the lighter spaces between grains and lightening up the sky a bit. The important thing is to know when to stop. When the average color of the sky looks good, do a normal non-lightening blur one final time and just leave it.

pax / Ctein

==========================================
— Ctein’s Online Gallery http://www.ctein.com
— Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com ==========================================