RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: captainbonius on Sunday 27 March 11 18:22 BST (UK)
-
please could anyone freshen up this picture of my sister and friends
thank you in anticipation
-
This has been scanned at a low 96dpi, any chance of scanning @300-600dpi please. The lower the dpi the less detail and the harder it is to restore.
Thanks, David.
-
Here's a restore. As I mentioned before a lot of detail has been lost due to the low dpi at scanning.
David.
-
This has been scanned at a low 96dpi, any chance of scanning @300-600dpi please. The lower the dpi the less detail and the harder it is to restore.
Thanks, David.
Hi David, :)
Interestingly enough this subject was discussed elsewhere this morning - according to me the above picture was scanned at 300 dpi.
-
showing as 300dpi for me as well ;D
Joy
-
Snap
It's not a bad file size but might benefit from being scanned at a larger scale
The alternative is to scan at 600
Just adding that when I said 'file size' I meant the Pixel Dimensions of 3.39 M
Rachel
-
Rachel - I wonder if instead of the image being posted at 223.85kb and
appearing to me to be compressed - might it be better to save it at nearer
the recommended 500kb.
Thee, me and Joy will have to stop meeting like this ! :) :) ;D
-
Mmmm, :)
Scanned at 300, reduced in physical (file) size, giving some JPEG algorithm loss.
But (sticks neck out) Out of focus negative printed on low grade paper, which has lost it's glaze (if it had much) due to the print becoming damp and also the loss of cohesion in the paper fibres.
Prue... ? ;D
Original appears to be 120 or 127 size neg and print? (captainbonius)
-
>:( :o ;D Oh goodness ~ technical chat ! (bottom lip begins to tremble)
I agree that it's probably just a rubbish print on naff paper (war time) which has deteriorated over the decades.
How you can tell if it's been compressed (apart from the jpg compression) I've not a clue but would also like to see it at a larger file size.
I always scan my own pics at 300 but change the scale accordingly, by roughly (very roughly) looking at how many times the height of the pic would fit on to A4.
I probably wouldn't go above 250-300% (unless it's a really tiny pic) but if it's for my own use then I'm not bothered about having a HUGE file.
Good morning Pauline ~ good to see you ;D
Rachel ;)
-
have resized picture is this any better
kind regards captainbonius
-
my try
Irene
-
one a bit more sharper
Irene
-
Hi David, :)
Interestingly enough this subject was discussed elsewhere this morning - according to me the above picture was scanned at 300 dpi.
Hi Pels, I can only go with the info I had at the time of restore i.e showing 96dpi. Apologies Captain bonius for the technical blah blah that ensued my comment.
Cheers, David.
-
Hi Pels, I can only go with the info I had at the time of restore i.e showing 96dpi. Apologies Captain bonius for the technical blah blah that ensued my comment.
Cheers, David.
The technical 'blah blah' is how we learn to be better at what we try to do.
If it's of benefit to the poster, I don't think captainbonius will object in the slightest. I'm sure your apology will be appreciated ! :) :)
Lovely restores Irene - I've been on with this all day and can't do it.
Thanks for coming to our help George. Hope you feel better tomorrow Rachel ! xx
Kind regards,
Pels.
-
Hi........Another to add to the list.
Carolyn :)
-
Hi Pels, I can only go with the info I had at the time of restore i.e showing 96dpi. Apologies Captain bonius for the technical blah blah that ensued my comment.
Cheers, David.
The technical 'blah blah' is how we learn to be better at what we try to do.
If it's of benefit to the poster, I don't think captainbonius will object in the slightest. I'm sure your apology will be appreciated ! :) :)
Lovely restores Irene - I've been on with this all day and can't do it.
Thanks for coming to our help George. Hope you feel better tomorrow Rachel ! xx
Kind regards,
Pels.
At the risk of having stuff thrown at me and out of curiosity, I'm posting what my computer says about the 2nd scan
As you can see, this is smaller :-\
Rachel
-
here's a previous thread worth reading
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,515336.0.html
and Caz' scanning tutorial
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,198165.0.html
Rachel (incapacitated) (http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o228/rachelscand/FTF/flower_sneeze_animated.gif) :(
-
The technical 'blah blah' is how we learn to be better at what we try to do.
If it's of benefit to the poster, I don't think captainbonius will object in the slightest. I'm sure your apology will be appreciated ! :) :)
Thanks for that Pels. I'm sure my apology will be appreciated. If the technical blah blah (don't be offended!! not meant to be offensive) is of benefit to the poster then fair enough. Personally speaking I know that I wouldn't like my post for a restore to be taken up with technical know how but instead if necessary a link to a technical forum.
David.