Gimp needs better dust/scratch removal?
M
(Polaroids from the 70's are in tough shape). The "Remove
Dust&Scratches" tool in Photodeluxe has been simply *amazing*. It
removes scratches cleanly without making a noticeable difference in
the photograph. Some of the scratches are quite large. However,
Photodeluxe doesn't offer me control over color levels as I'd like. I
could use Photoshop, but I don't want to fork over $500!!
So got my scanner going on Linux. However, I haven't been able to
painlessly remove scratches like Photodeluxe does. The "Despeckle"
filter in Gimp doesn't even come close.
Does anyone know of a filter, or Gimp technique to remove scratches
comparable to Adobe's offering?
If not, would anyone care to comment on the complexity of such an
algorithm?? I'm not bashing Gimp...its a fabulous tool especially for
the price. However for all its been talked up (everything Photoshop
has except CMYK is what I commonly hear), I am frankly disappointed
with its ability to easily remove scratches.
Thanks,
Mike
Nigel
> painlessly remove scratches like Photodeluxe does. The "Despeckle"
> filter in Gimp doesn't even come close.
that would be right
> Does anyone know of a filter, or Gimp technique to remove scratches
> comparable to Adobe's offering?
there is a 'grain erase' filter floating out there somewhere, check out
registry.gimp.org, the emphasis is on dust/grain though not large scratches.
Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)
> Does anyone know of a filter, or Gimp technique to remove scratches
> comparable to Adobe's offering?
Clone tool. (This is really good.)
Smudge tool.
Very slight Blur.
In fact, I've been warned not to use Photoshop's "Dust and Scratches"
unless the case is "pathological" - I don't know how Photodeluxe =)
Hand work is often better.
--
$_='%?&%[=&+=?%=[%&+&%[*?]&=&~[;&+&{=?[?&%&[&{[%&^=?=[&%&]=?%~&~[?&+&~YiFF!
=[=~| Weyfour WWWWolf (aka. Urpo Lankinen), a lupine technomancer |=?*_=}?]
%}&};| ICQ:4291042 | www...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/ |&;&=~?]';
tr/?~=*;%&[{}]+_^ (),.:@\/\n0-9!|a-zA-Z/0-9acde/d; $_=pack("H*",$_); print;
Tsu Dho Nimh
>I've been using Adobe Photodeluxe to scan damaged family photographs
>(Polaroids from the 70's are in tough shape). The "Remove
>Dust&Scratches" tool in Photodeluxe has been simply *amazing*. It
>removes scratches cleanly without making a noticeable difference in
>the photograph. Some of the scratches are quite large. However,
>Photodeluxe doesn't offer me control over color levels as I'd like. I
>could use Photoshop, but I don't want to fork over $500!!
So, scan with Photodeluxe, remove scratches, then save. After
you have a bunch of images, load GIMP and do the colors. There
is no law tghat says you can only use one tool.
Tsu Dho Nimh
--
"Y'know, I can *say* I'm Ming The Merciless, Emporer of Planet Mongo, but
unless I can produce a few legions of heavily-armed rocket ships, you're not
likely to take me seriously." Morely Dotes, 2001
Lee J. Moore
[..]
> So, scan with Photodeluxe, remove scratches, then save. After you have
> a bunch of images, load GIMP and do the colors. There is no law tghat
> says you can only use one tool.
Regardless, it's interesting feedback for Gimp hackers everywhere, in
that not everybody with Gimp is going to be able to use Photodeluxe. I
certainly cannot.
Regards
--
Lee J. Moore
Remove the monarchy to email
Leonard Evens
<mrm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've used Photoshop but never used a tool to remove dust and scratches in
one operation. The dust and scratches on my negatives are about the
same order of magnitude as detail in the picture I certainly wouldn't
want to remove. I try to keep my negatives and slides as clean as
possible and then I use the clone tool to spot. This is certainly more
time consuming than issuing a single command, but it is worth the effort.
Occasionally when I have a very bad negative or slide which I feel I need
to work with, I apply other general tools. For example, selecting the
some area or color and applying an appropriate gaussian blur will often
do it. Also, the Gimp has a selective gaussian blur (called smart
gaussian blur in Photoshop, I believe), and by playing with the
parameters, one can accomplish something like what you want.
But until artificial intelligence has risen to the level where it can do
what the human brain can in distinguish detail in the picture from
unwanted defects, there is no way to apply an overall tool without
degrading the image. As it is, I sometimes find I can't myself be sure
something is in the picture or comes from a spot of dust.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
M
> > comparable to Adobe's offering?
>
> Clone tool. (This is really good.)
> Smudge tool.
> Very slight Blur.
Yep, I use the Clone tool quite a bit when large chunks of the picture
are missing.
Photodeluxe does a great job in about 10 seconds of work (a few
clicks) for pictures that have a dozen scratches. Manually fixing
them would involve intensive effort for each picture. I have several
hundred of them!!
> In fact, I've been warned not to use Photoshop's "Dust and Scratches"
> unless the case is "pathological" - I don't know how Photodeluxe =)
> Hand work is often better.
I'd be happy to e-mail you some before/after pictures. I don't know
what you mean by pathological??
I think my solution is to use both applications. Use Photodeluxe for
Dust&Scratch removal, then ship the pictures over to the Gimp for fine
color tuning.
Thanks!
Branko Collin
>Does anyone know of a filter, or Gimp technique to remove scratches
>comparable to Adobe's offering?
>
>If not, would anyone care to comment on the complexity of such an
>algorithm?? I'm not bashing Gimp...its a fabulous tool especially for
>the price. However for all its been talked up (everything Photoshop
>has except CMYK is what I commonly hear), I am frankly disappointed
>with its ability to easily remove scratches.
I am sorry to hear that. I do not know how complex it is to copy
PhotoDeluxe's dust/scratch removal tool.
--
branko collin
Volk van San Theodoros, ik heb U begrepen.
Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)
>> In fact, I've been warned not to use Photoshop's "Dust and Scratches"
>> unless the case is "pathological" - I don't know how Photodeluxe =)
>> Hand work is often better.
> I'd be happy to e-mail you some before/after pictures. I don't know
> what you mean by pathological??
As in "so full of dust that no mortal could have the patience to clean
it up by hand, and the scan original can't be cleaned"... =)