Yes. You can brush large areas,, like backgrounds, with a large history brush and it also works much better with scratches. I've been scanning over 100,000 B&W negatives and couldn't have done it without Polaroid's Dust and Scratches.
.
On Thursday, September 6, 2012, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2012-09-06 13:25, Tina Manley wrote:
>>
>> The Polaroid Dust and Scratches filter deals with dust and scratches
>> better than anything I have found, but it does result in some artifacts.
>> To get around that, I apply the D&S filter at whatever strength is
>> needed to get rid of most of the flaws. Then in the History panel, I
>> click the box that applies the History Brush to that level and then
>> click on the level above (before the filter was applied). That way you
>> can use the History Brush, viewing at 100%, to brush out only the flaws
>> and the filter is not applied to the whole photo. You can do the same
>> thing with layers, but I usually use the History Brush because it's
>> easier and faster.
>
> If you're spotting dust bits individually, is this really better than spot healing brush?
>
> For big dirty background areas, I've been using ordinary Photoshop Dust & Scratches filter, on a copy of the background layer, and then creating a layer mask to limit it to the areas where detail isn't critical (out-of-focus backrounds generally). (I was scanning several hundred B&W index prints from the 1960s by another photographer; to call them "somewhat dirty" would be an understatement.)
>
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
