Jay Smith <j...@jaysmith.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote:
> > I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the
> > scanner. You can see them at:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318...@n04/
> > Img137 is a sample of matte finish processing that even with Gaussian Blur
> > and Unsharpening can't remove the texture look.
> > Img138 is an example of portrait texture that I'm having problems
> > removing/minimizing.
> > Thanks again.
> > Sandi
> >> Could you show us an example of what you get?
> On Img137 (four people), is the shadow behind the people, especially
> their heads, in the actual photograph or is that an artifact of
> scanning? If the latter, then there is some other problem.
> However, I am impressed that they look as good as they do.
> My wife just scanned a couple hundred pictures of the same era as yours
> on all sorts of photographic papers, including matte and textured. Your
> results are in the 97% percentile as far as I am concerned.
> When you start with crap -- which most old family photos are -- you
> can't really improve upon them much. You may be able to minimize
> further degradation, but you can't create quality where it does not exist.
Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really
appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi
at the very least.
Gimp-user mailing list