Heh. Why does dust only matter for the 35 million film cameras out there? I might argue that a sensor with power applied to it is even more of a dust magnet than film that has been wound to the next frame, generating static electricity. How many replaceable lens digital cameras are out there? Andrew On Thu, September 6, 2012 3:42 pm, Jan Faul wrote: > > 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 >> >> > > Art Faul > > > The Artist Formerly Known as Prints > ------ > Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com > Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com > Camera Works - The Washington Post > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm > ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/ > http://www.artiqueunderground.com/artist/69. > > > > > > >
