Photoshop’s D&S leaves a lot to be desired and in my mind it is one of the great failures of Adobe software. What is in every other way a sophisticated piece of software, when it gets to D&S, Adobe is no farther advanced than they were a decade ago. There also used to be n excellent piece of software called Intellihance, but the folks who wrote it, have abandoned it since the advent of cleaner digital files. They all act like dust is a thing of the past, and meanwhile there are an estimated 35 million film cameras in the US.
JAn
On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet 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
|
