Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
One can increase the number of pixels quite a bit without negatively affecting details; however, increasing the size of the photo will not help a photo that lacks sufficient detail to begin with.  In such cases the lack of detail may become more obvious.  I have software to increase pixel size up to 600 per cent.  If you like, send the digital file to me and I'll give it a try. No guarantees that it will produce wonders, but it could work (stargazingcamel@aol.com).

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for offer of help - if I need enlarging the picture I will know where to write ;)

By the way maybe you know how I can reduce grains from scans (for example in Photoshop) that they will look like camera-made picture? I have some scans (actually advertising materials) which I have to include in my book but after scanning them I realized that the texture of scans is different from photos. Or it's better not to scan them but photograph? I tried one time to photograph but it was worse than scanning.

by FarEasterner on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 08:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You should be able to choose the resolution that you scan in at.  Higher resolution should give you a similar result to the original picture.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tried but when I increased resolution too much (for example starting with 1200 dots per inch or so) picture quality does not improve much but used disk space - yes.
by FarEasterner on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 04:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Scanners will sometimes pretend to support higher resolution than they do ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 04:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More than you wanted to know I'm sure, but...

Yes, I've noticed a lot of grain in some of my scans also, especially from negatives that produce higher grain to begin with.  For example, the higher the ISO number, generally the more apparent grain you will see. Good film at 100 ISO or below produces little apparent grain at moderate sized enlargement while ISO 800 will show more.  I believe that grain is also more apparent in negatives than positive (chrome/slide) films.  The other thing I have heard is that scanning resolutions at 5000ppi and above somehow avoid magnifying the grain that you and I see from our scans.  Unfortunately, my film scanner maxes out at 4000ppi.

Another solution is to use a scanning software that has built in grain reduction. A German company (Lasersoft) produces a scanning software called Silverfast Ai that has a built in grain reduction program that works very well.  I use it on my flatbed scanner for print scanning and medium format transparency scans.  Unfortunately, Silverfast is not inexpensive unless you get it bundled with the purchase of a scanner as I did.  I've been toying with the idea of obtaining it for my film scanner, but it runs over $300, and it's good for just the one scanner.  Each scanner has its own version.

You might try scanning at a lower resolution and see what effect that has on reducing grain. In Photoshop try using the Filter>Noise>dust&scratches or the median filter.  Also be sure to buy low grain films to begin with.  Check manufacturer's or photo web site for stats on products.

I used these two filters on the photo below.  First pic is the untouched version.  The second is dust and scratches, and third is median. Both filters seem to blur details somewhat depending on how you set them, so be careful and be prepared to use a sharpening method to bring back detail.  By the way, this photo wasn't all that sharp to begin with and before cropping, this it included the whole animal and quite a bit of background.. Sharpening is also necessary for scanned photos/transparencies that will be used for books/magazines, etc, in order to get the best product, but that's a whole complicated subject by itself.




I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you so much. I never knew about software.

Of course I tried using Dust & scratches in Photoshop but it was not perfect. Then I used Adobe Image Ready (I don't remember precisely what i did but I think when I opened a photo or scan it used to say it can optimize it and in some scans result was little bit better).

Then i found how to improve - just next to Dust & Scratches button there is one - Reduce noise with three parameters. After many attempts I found when I put upper one at 0, and the rest at 25%, result is quite satisfactory. You can try also.

by FarEasterner on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 04:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I originally tried using the reduce noise filter on the photo above and it didn't reduce the grain at all so I didn't include the results in my posting. It appeared to me that the reduce noise filter affects mostly other types of noise such as scanner induced, camera, and Jpeg compression noise. These types of noise problems seem to be affected differently than film grain by the filter, but if your results work for you then there is no problem.  One would think that noise is noise, but the size, color and frequency of the noise may be looked at in different ways by the software. Anyway, best of luck with your photos and book.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Project Free-Dumb

by rifek - May 4
3 comments

Growing Food in Hard Times

by gmoke - Apr 20
1 comment

US Rugby

by rifek - Apr 18

There Are No Grown-Ups In Charge

by rifek - Apr 17
2 comments

Occasional Series