Re: Σχετ: Polaroid D&S

[Tina Manley <images@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Digital spots tend to be in the same place on every photo and are easier handled with Light Room's spot remover that can be applied to all photos at the same time.

Tina

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM, <asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com