john_wheeler6

This pattern remover is an FFT process which are great for exactly repeating patterns over the entire image. I use it on images that have been scanned from prints that have a regular pattern in the paper used for printing. There are a number of these FFT plugins/Actions available and If the pattern is not exactly repeating or if not over the entire image, FFT is of limited usefulness. It does not help in the case of the OPs banding problem. Thanks for sharing the link though as it solves a specific problem amazingly well.

HI alexcarter Lots of good approaches already posted. My approach is: 1) extract the high frequency component with high pass filter 2) Box blur the original copy 3) reapply amplifed high frequency component with soft filter blend 4) Mask this version just to the sky 5) Content Aware fill of the boundaries (my try could be done better) 6) remove dust/hair scratches Hope this helps some

Hi Andylynn I believe it only supports RGB. Check the following help file for details: https://help.phaseone.com/en/co6/output/learn-more-about-file-formats/capture-one-and-raw?p=1 Hope that helps John Wheeler

Hi John Di Leo Can you provide via a file sharing site (e.g. Dropbox) an example of an image pre-Wacom and post Wacom for forum members to do some forensics. The size of the JPEG has to do with the image pixel dimensions, compression level, and the level of higher frequency components in the image itself. Remote possibility that there is a ton of metadata store with your JPEG yet that would be unusual. Having the files to compare might allow forum members to more quickly track down your issue. You could also edit one image with your trackpad and another with the Wacom to see if there is any significant difference as well. The Wacom being added may have nothing to do with the size increase. Just some quick suggestions BTW - I noticed that you are using YUV color space. Is that your preferred color space. I still see most use some standard RGB color space

Hi Mikef7 It is not hard to get into "analysis paralysis" of having the perfect answer. Maybe the perfect answer is getting decent digital images to your siblings semi sorted in folders of approximate era so it is in their hands for enjoyment ASAP. Often the joy of looking back on family photos is an image that is good enough to evoke the feelings/emotions of that different era and not the technical perfectness of the scan. Just going by my own experience and struggles having to do this for 3000 family slides my parents had taken over a similar number of decades. So here is what I decided to do. Note that many slides came in bunches of either 24 or 36 depending on the type of film you used. So likely for 1000 total slides you are talking about ~40 rolls of film. - group the slides in about that many groups trying to find which goes with which slide roll. I have found that on the ones I used, the slide carrier had slight differenes and/or there were impressed dates on the slides. In any case, group them by the roll of film which went together. If you can because the slides had a stamp number you can put them in order for each original roll of film yet that is less critical since getting it done is of priority. - I used Larsen Digital in Utah (not shipped overseas) and they did a great job for me. You an select the format and resolution with many other possible post processing options depending on your desired investment level: Digital Conversion | Larsen Digital | Digital Transfer - At the bottom of the linked web page there are many links for their servcies and one of those links is prepping your slides: How to prepare order for digital conversion | Larsen Digital - I banded each group of slides (based on the roll of film from which there were derived) and labeled them. Larsen digital can provide back to you CDs (or even online) the images which each group in its own named folder. So one does not need to make it as complex as a full DAM system yet just one master folder that has each slide group in its own sub folder (each approximate timeframe is what I used) - You can get the sides back in the same package and order as you sent to them - just request it. So in that very very rate case where someone says I want an even better image than what was captured digitally, you could always pull out that one slide (since you have it organized) for special scanning and post processing. Note that in the 20 years in which I have had the digital copies from Larsen Digital - not once have I gone back to the color slides (though I do have them in storage). - I believe I opted to get the highest resolution in TIFF format at extra expense yet on retrospect, for how the images have been used, that was way overkill. Hope this helps give you a path to consider to get the job done and out of your hair and our of analysis paralysis :) John Wheeler

Both the Display and the Laptop both cover sRGB well enough. However I don't think the graphics card will support the high bit depth graphics especially for applications such as Adobe Photoshop. The 4 trillion colors on the display is a bit misleading. Assuming that the 14 bit LUT supports a high bit into the display electronics (not truncated) you would still need a high bit depth from the application, OS, and your laptop graphics card. Typically the best available is 30 bit depth (10bits per channel) which is pretty good at reducing issues of banding on displays that support the high bit depth. All the above also assumes that you have done calibration and profiling that properly sets up any LUT in graphics card or in your display. No doubt someone else on the forum could be more definitive on this topic relative to your ACER laptop capabilities, yet I am skeptical it covers that bit depth for programs such as with Adobe Photoshop. Hope you find this useful or at least spurs you to investigate further. John Wheeler

Have not posted too often here. Topaz AI sharpen, PS ACR adjustments, Cropping to my tastes, post

Hi tycin Here are the decisions I have found in the scanning process 1) Do it yourself or pay for scanning service (you've made that decision apparently) 2) Will you be having access later on to the slides for the rare case you want a better scan? If yes, you can scan at lower resolution and to JPEG and for the rare few, go back and do a better scan later. This saves on time and disk space yet personally I don't want to have to save my slides in safe storage forever yet it is a viable option. 2) Which resolution to scan at (which does impact scanning speed and file size) determined by - what's the largest print you want to ever make - what is the smallest area on a slide that you might want cropped out to print 3) How much post processing to you expect on these scans. If significant adjustments needed in recovery work, scanning at higher resolution, 16 bit, and Tiff format has proven useful for me. I suspect in the majority of old family images, that would not be the case (see #2 above). If not much post processing then 8 bit scans to good quality JPEG should be just fine. So again, option #2 could work for just the slides that need that special processing Just some quick thoughts to consider based on my own experience. Best wishes on your project.

Hi Paula I am not sure exactly what I am looking at with your image yet the Hue map below may be of some help as a clue to the source of your problem (so in other words I am guessing at your set up and what I infer from this Hue map. I am assuming you made the shot from an angle that gives a pretty significant angle perspective. If this is not the case you can ignore my inputs below. All of the Hue variations are very subtle which are highly magnified with this Hue map. Not that the middle band of Hue variation does not follow the same perspective as the edges of the white painting/wall. This suggests to me that the problem lies not in your lighting yet something inside your camera. Not sure if this has to do with some aberrant lighting that made it into the camera or something to do with the shutter or sync settings yet having a vertical band when I would expect a matching perspective looking band points me to something with the camera or camera settings. Though possible yet less likely it is some indirect light aberration entering the camera yet given the area of question is illuminated equally with the plane of the sensor and the edge lines exactly lined up with the shutter edges I think that less likely. Hope this gives you a direction to consider yet I am reaching a bit given my lack of detailed understanding of your set up. Dropbox link follows of Hue Map image (reduced to 1500 x 1000 pixels) Dropbox - Off-White-Image.jpg ADDED: Just saw you post about the center area being coated differently. That certainly could explain the Hue band if it matches that area of the image in the link I posted

Hi Mike No I am not in Atlanta. There are quite a few things that go into the best image from scanning so thought I would attach a link to this article about a person that did resolution testing of his Epson V700. My conclusion is that at the higher settings you are likely not going to get better resolution yet there is little downside to the resolution if you do scan at the highest setting (other than scan time and file size). Good luck with your project. Optimum Resolution & Sharpening Settings for Epson Scanners

Hi Mike Good question yet I am going to take ad different approach to your question. That is, since these are family pictures, what resolution do you need for usage purposes. 4K screens (pretty good viewing) have a resolution of 3840 x 2160 8x10 prints at 300 dpi are 3000 x 2400 dpi For most all direct viewing uses 4800 dpi should be sufficient. If you are going to crop into a small subset of the image you might need more Not you also need to decide if you want 8 bit dept sanning or 16 bit scannng and which storage format. If you are going to do significant post process that 16 bit an TIFF would be good. If this is just for quick viwing of images than 8 bit and storing as JPG should do If the number of keeper keeper images is really small, you could always scan at lower resolution 4800 dpi or even 200 dpi and if you ever (maybe unlikely) where you need higher resolution, you pull up the scant few slides that need it and resacn at 4800 or maybe 6400 dpi. I bet you find that it would be rare you would need a higher resolution scan for family photos which are for jogging your memories rather than ones needed the finest resolution . BTW - If you have the best low grain film, high contrast subjects using the best possible lenses on the camera for those family pictures you can see a diffeence between 4800 and 6400 dpi by pixel peeping yet do you need it for your viewing pleasure even if all those other conditions were met. Just another way of looking at it. Hope this helps.

Thanks William, I just keyed off of recent posts and did not notice the thread was 12 years old. Are you trying to tell me I am just a bit late? :):):);)

Hi Steve. The description of Auto Crop looks like it does the job and I hever have used it yet here are the steps that will record properly to do what you want 1) Load image 2) Duplicate Layer Cmd J (Cntl + J for PC) 3) Transform second Layer and rotate 90 degrees either direction 4) Cmd click on Layer Thumbnail of Duplicate Layer to create selection (Cntl click on Layer Thumbnail for PC) 5) Delete Duplicate Layer 6) Image > Crop 7) Optionally Cmd + D to remove selection (Cntl + D on PC) 8) Size and save image as desired using Image > Image Size (with desired parameters) This gives you a square iamge cropped exactly in the center of the image no matter if you started with portrait or landscape image. Hope this helps

Hi Ed_Farmer A lot of good comments on this thread. Here are a couple things to consider 1) I seriously suggest you put a value on your time in consdiedering if it is worth your time and energy compared to having a servicd do the job for you. 2) A few years back I had my dads slides from the 1950s to 1980s scanned. There were about 2400 slides. These were family slides of various quality etc. While having them all digitized to look at on my computer was fun, I did not need the highest quality scan to bring back good memories and the actual number of "keepers" that I wanted in very high resolution / quality was a very small fraction of the total. 3) You could consider having the scans done at low cost at reasonable quality and then, after reviewing all the results, "maybe" consider scanning and post processing the rare few where you want to invest your own time and energy. 4) It doesn't have to be have absolute highest resolution in 16 bit TIFF after scrubbing off every bit of dust on all 1000 images. A combined approach is worth considering as well. Just my opinion of course

Hi Steve That is an interesting problem. As far as .icc vs icm profiles, they should be identical except for the extension according to the International color Consortium per this link: ICC Frequently asked questions My understanding was the Photoshop did not care and could use either extension as well. So there may be three possibilities 1) the profiles are actually not the same except for the extension 2) Pilot error and something else was set differently in your workflow 3) My assumptions based on what I have read is incorrect. You did not mention which version of PS you are using. If you shared the two files (one icc and one icm) through file sharing link then they could be examined to see if there are any differences by looking inside the file and also run through some special software to see if one contains errors. Strange problem and hope these suggestions help.

I purchased the plugin and it has worked fine for me so far. I am using Phototshop CC 2015.5.1 If someone wants to post an example image to try out, I could run it though and past the result. I do believe the settings that are needed for a good result are highly dependent on the scan resolution. I would not be surprised at extremely high scan resolution (were the defects were a very large number of pixels in size) that getting a good correction may be difficult. Seemed to work pretty well for me after trying different settings and getting used to the controls.

James, I would not be so sure that the scanning process would not create the green dots. I would first do some tests to rule the scanning process out before concluding that is not the issue. I would turn off multi exposure and multi-scan for one image and then try multi-exposure and multi-scan separately for two more exposures and the last exposure would be multi-scan and multi-exposure together. If some have the green dots and some do not, that wold narrow down the issue. If they all have the same issue then you at least eliminated the issue being related to the software combining all the separate scans properly together. Thought this would be worth a shot.

Hi acm Lots of variables to consider. To help narrow this down, import or view the exported JPEG from Capture 1 Pro 10 back into Capture 1. Compare the images before import vs the JPEG you exported from within Capture 1. If they look different, then the issue is in the Export details from Capture 1 Pro. If they look the same, then likely the issue is elsewhere. This is just a suggested divide and conquer first step so we can start separating out if this color difference is caused by C1, PS, System Color Management etc John Wheeler

Hi Cordek. You did not provide too many details yet this sounds that it is a color management issue. If the image you save is in ProPhoto RGB, yet either: a) Not embed the color profile with the image or b) Are using a non-color manage browser Then the ProPhoto RGB color data may be interpreted as sRGB color space data which will desaturate a lot of colors and in particular turn many greens into brown. I suggest that you convert the profile to sRGB when you are going to post on the web and ideally also embed the profile with the image. The following image shows a rainbow band of colors in the bottom and the same band (inverted) above showing the look if a ProPhoto RGB color space image was interpreted as sRGB color space. Hope this information is of some use John Wheeler

I would check out this link and its embedded links: Epson P400 printing too dark (compared to screen).: Printers and Printing Forum: Digital Photography Review

Hi John This is not the main issue yet you need to keep in mind that the 2011 MacBook Pro did not have IPS displays so there is huge shifts in color and luminosity when you tilt the lid back or forward. This also means that the calibration/profiling only applies to a limited viewing angle to the screen. I found with the older Macs that the best shot was to view the image straight on or at an angle that is 90 degrees to the screen. For critical work I suggest a side IPS monitor cabled in or eventually upgrading the MacBook Pro to version that has an IPS display. FYI

HI John It does not sound correct that you have a brown tint for your image so not sure what is going on. It might help to provide your monitor information and verify that your OSD settings are all correct on the monitor for the best calibration/profiling. As a side note, you should be able to use the Color Sync Utility to print out test images directly to the printer per this link: http://www.colourphil.co.uk/profiling-colorsync-utility-mac.shtml Hope the information is helpful John Wheeler

Hi nicholas - The images on imgur are not sRGB yet rather Adobe RGB. If viewed on a non-color managed application/browser with an ~sRGB gamut monitor, they the saturation will look dull. I don't know for sure yet that seems like a fair chance for your issue.

Hi Jeff You will also want to change not just to a consistent pixel size yet also a consisted dpi. Fonts are most often based on inches and not the number of pixels. I bet that was your issue. Hope this helps.