Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: sister in kent 1940  (Read 3689 times)

Offline captainbonius

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
sister in kent 1940
« 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

Offline D_

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 27 March 11 21:06 BST (UK) »
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.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline D_

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 27 March 11 23:11 BST (UK) »
Here's a restore.  As I mentioned before a lot of detail has been lost due to the low dpi at scanning. 

David.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Pels.

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 10,230
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #3 on: Monday 28 March 11 22:58 BST (UK) »
Quote from: DCF_2009 on Sunday 27 March 11 21:06 BST (UK)
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.

.


Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Joyful

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,626
  • My beautiful Mum & Uncle Neil
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #4 on: Monday 28 March 11 23:09 BST (UK) »
showing as 300dpi for me as well ;D

Joy
Anderson R&C & Orkney, Jack, Patience, Hood R&C, McVicar Argll & Glasgow, Gourlay Glasgow, Docherty Glasgow, McNicol Argyll, Leask Orkney, Cumming Okney,
Tait Orkney, Brown Orkney, Sinclair Orkney, Craigie Orkney, Foulis Orkney, Beard Gloucester & Bundarra NSW, Pamplin Cambridge & NSW, Ashman Cambridge, McCarthy Ireland & Glen Innes NSW, Raleigh Ireland, Connelly Ireland, Waldron Ireland.
UK Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Rachels

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,583
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #5 on: Monday 28 March 11 23:53 BST (UK) »
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
FOR RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT 300-600 
Please do NOT use my restores without permission, unless you're the owner of the photo.  Some of my restores are on flickr.com ~ rachel sc

my computer is an iMac

BANCE, BALLINGER, CHEES(E)MAN, CONNOR, COOK, COX, CRUTCHLEY,
DAWSON, FLYNN, FOLWELL, FORGAN, FORREST, HARRIS, KING, LOOKER,
MIDGLEY, OATES, ROE, SIM(M)S, WHITTINGTON

Offline Pels.

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 10,230
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 29 March 11 00:17 BST (UK) »




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
.


Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline miagre1

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 29 March 11 00:54 BST (UK) »
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)

Scan at 300 plus for restores please. Scan at larger dpi for small photos. Don't forget to crop the scanner bed out! (Them's the white bits)
Please feel free to alter any work by me for the benefit of the Poster.


Linklater - Middlesbrough/Orkney/Shetland
Cantley - Longhope/Hoy


Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

Offline Rachels

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,583
    • View Profile
Re: sister in kent 1940
« Reply #8 on: Tuesday 29 March 11 08:44 BST (UK) »
 >:( :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  ;)
FOR RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT 300-600 
Please do NOT use my restores without permission, unless you're the owner of the photo.  Some of my restores are on flickr.com ~ rachel sc

my computer is an iMac

BANCE, BALLINGER, CHEES(E)MAN, CONNOR, COOK, COX, CRUTCHLEY,
DAWSON, FLYNN, FOLWELL, FORGAN, FORREST, HARRIS, KING, LOOKER,
MIDGLEY, OATES, ROE, SIM(M)S, WHITTINGTON
Pages: [1] 2