 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2007Recovering Noisy Slide Scan
A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me recover a picture with blown highlights. See http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/browse_frm/thread/b 092fa64e73fb5b/cfef7bac8c4d4e8f?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#cfef7bac8c4d4e8f This time, I have a very noisy scan of a slide that I'd like to improve, if possible. See http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlight.jpg The slide was taken from the lookout over Yosemite valley that Ansel Adams made famous. It was a beautiful moonlit night. The actual slide ended up being very dark. I'm surprised the scanner (a Nikon 5000 ED) got as much as it did. Does anyone have some suggestions, either to improve the scan or the clean up the noise digitally? Many thanks, Doug > A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me recover a > picture with blown highlights. See [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Does anyone have some suggestions, either to improve the scan or the clean up > the noise digitally? Yes, that's a neat shot. Incredibly grainy though. Here's a real quick shot at a masked blurred layer for the sky: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/ElCapitanbyMoonlight-blur.jpg There are problems with such a wide blur creating halos that could be improved with more careful selection.  SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me recover a > picture with blown highlights. See [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Many thanks, > Doug This would definitely need to be rescanned. This is slightly better but not much. http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s108/Billfor/ElCapitanbyMoonlight.jpg > A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me recover a > picture with blown highlights. See [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Many thanks, > Doug I guess that isn't the original sized scan. If you've got it at higher resolution and can upload it, then it might be possible to get better results. From the image you posted, I could get this result with no more than a couple of minutes work: http://i9.tinypic.com/6bk4kfc.jpg >> A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me >> recover a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > couple of minutes work: > http://i9.tinypic.com/6bk4kfc.jpg That's pretty good, how'd you do it? I see some sharpening added in the rocks also. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >>> A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me >>> recover a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > That's pretty good, how'd you do it? I see some sharpening added in the > rocks also. Applied two levels of NR (Noiseware), dropped one image on top of the other in aligned layers, lassoed out the sky so that heaviest NR was only in sky area, merged down, lassoed the rocks with feathered selection, and applied a little USM. But, on a full size image, I expect that more than a few minutes would be needed for a good result. >I guess that isn't the original sized scan. >If you've got it at higher resolution and can upload it, then it might >be possible to get better results. OK. Here's a 3.7 megabyte version: http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig.jpg I've got a 44 megabyte TIFF, if you really want to get crazy. > From the image you posted, I could get this result with no more than a >couple of minutes work: >http://i9.tinypic.com/6bk4kfc.jpg Nice. What'd ya' do? Thanks, Doug > OK. Here's a 3.7 megabyte version: > http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig.jpg Wow - now there's a challenge - it looks like a scan of an impressionist painting. I'll have a look later - but I'm pretty sure that a great result won't be easy. >> OK. Here's a 3.7 megabyte version: >> http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig.jpg >> > Wow - now there's a challenge - it looks like a scan of an impressionist > painting. Maybe just go with the flow on that concept (crop at full pixels): http://www.edgehill.net/temp/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig-pal.jpg That's using the artistic filter 'pallete knife' effect, half of it exposing the untreated noise. This could look cool printed large. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >Maybe just go with the flow on that concept (crop at full pixels): >http://www.edgehill.net/temp/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig-pal.jpg >That's using the artistic filter 'pallete knife' effect, half of it >exposing the untreated noise. This could look cool printed large. It does look really cool. See http://home.swbell.net/daj3/Impressionist.jpg I may just go with this. -- Doug >> Maybe just go with the flow on that concept (crop at full pixels): >> http://www.edgehill.net/temp/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig-pal.jpg [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I may just go with this. > -- Doug I think that's the way to go. With NR, I don't think that anything suitable for larger than about a postcard sized print can be recovered from that image. >>> Maybe just go with the flow on that concept (crop at full pixels): >>> http://www.edgehill.net/temp/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig-pal.jpg [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > With NR, I don't think that anything suitable for larger than about a > postcard sized print can be recovered from that image. Looks good, yes this is a case where that approach is truly justified. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > OK. Here's a 3.7 megabyte version: > http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig.jpg It looks like the emulsion has crazed or been damaged in some way. The "grain" structure is really coarse but sharply defined. Resampling the large image (with no interpolation) to around 1/2 size puts the grain at a size where NR software is reasonably (but not totally) effective without destroying all the detail - but a lot of additional work would need to be done cloning blobs etc. I think that a scan at lower resolution might give a better start point and a better result than resampling the large image. Can I suggest re-scanning at about 1/2 the resolution of the existing scan so that instead of sharply defined "grain", the grain might more effectively be dealt with using NR software. As it is, as well as NR, some selective "de-speckling" is needed on dark areas. >> OK. Here's a 3.7 megabyte version: >> http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig.jpg >> >It looks like the emulsion has crazed or been damaged in some way. The >"grain" structure is really coarse but sharply defined. The emulsion seems OK. The slide is really dense. If you look at it against a light, all you can see is the star trail in the upper left and a hint of El Capitan. I had started out thinking what we were seeing was scanning noise, now I'm convinced it is grain because the same patterns exist in every scan. >Can I suggest re-scanning at about 1/2 the resolution of the existing >scan so that instead of sharply defined "grain", the grain might more >effectively be dealt with using NR software. Here is a scan at 2000 dpi instead of the original 4000 dpi. I also turned up the analog gain to the maximum. http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanbyMoonlightBig2000dpi.jpg Here is my best effort so far. http://home.swbell.net/daj3/ElCapitanByMoonlightEdited.jpg I started with the 2000 dpi scan and ran it through two filters in Noiseware -- grain and night, merged the images, did a gaussian blur on the sky, then a USM on the whole picture. I'm not sure I've improved anything. Thanks, Doug > A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me recover a > picture with blown highlights. See [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Many thanks, > Doug Get a trial copy of Neat Image and try that. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >A couple of years ago, this group did a wonderful job of helping me recover >a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Many thanks, > Doug Nothing's going to turn that into a good print. Go back and shoot it again...? -- www.mattclara.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.