How to Scan Magazines - A discussion

[hartwig]

First of all: Mod, please move this discussion as I didn't know where to put it.
Thx!
-

Hi everybody,

since I started scanning my mags and came across some difficulties of improving the result while keeping the quality good over a whole magazine I wanted to ask you about your tricks to do so. :confused:

Ok, here's how I scan:
1) I scan from The Gimp using a Canon Canoscan ScanLide 90
2) I pin down the master using heavy books with a hard cover book as the lowest layer to straighten out the pages -> I've got to keep the scanner open
3) That's why I avoid light within the direct area of the scanner
4) I make a couple of test scans per mag using 400dpi to find out what color correction I get the best results with

-> And 4 bears the problem: When I preview e.g. page 1 the color optimizations will almost never lead to a good result on e.g. page 6 because the color bias changes with the developing of the series.

- How do you scan to achieve the best results?
- If I scanned without color correction, are there any cool tools to batch correct brightness/contrast/satuation

Looking forward to your replies :)

amicalement, hartwig

[jobart]

Basic retouching software:

ACDSee (well, I used) basic retouching

Retouching software more complex:

Paint Shop Pro (which I own)

Adobe Photoshop

Looking a bit, you should find it on the net .....

Now when you scanned an image the détramer

This avoids tapes and photos on the square

Greetings

Jobart

sorry for english.....

[hartwig]

Basic retouching software:

ACDSee (well, I used) basic retouching

Retouching software more complex:

Paint Shop Pro (which I own)

Adobe Photoshop

Looking a bit, you should find it on the net .....

Now when you scanned an image the détramer

This avoids tapes and photos on the square

Greetings

Jobart

sorry for english.....

Hey Job, if this scan is from you you're DA MAN for me :)
http://img230.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=38810_cc130k07_123_5lo.jpg

GREAT!! The colors are good but most of all the contrast and crispyness is fucking awsome! What exactly were your scanner settings and what filters did you use?

Thx! :)
hartwig

[Trip]

I use an old HP ScanJet 3300C

http://img232.imagevenue.com/loc231/th_66598_Scanner_HP3300_122_231lo.jpg (http://img232.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66598_Scanner_HP3300_122_231lo.jpg)

Within the HP PrecisionScan LT Software,
is a helpful tool called "Descreen Printed Originals / Slow Speed"....

If this is not selected, well that is how those nasty yellow lines appear.
Chroma damage - Horribly lame results.
Everyone must have seen those before, when viewing posts.

Select that option, to get rid of them using this particular device.


==================

After scanning I use exclusively Adobe Photoshop for any or all enhancements.
Currently running versions 4.0, 5.5, and CS.

Unlike many of my old pals scanning for the newsgroups, I do not like the AP 'unsharp mask' filter.
Although it is still something to consider, because it eliminates artifacts, especially in beat up old magazines.

I basically re-position for symmetry, perhaps increase contrast
and a bit of luma, (brightness) but not too much,
and depending on the print, reduce or increase (chroma) saturation.

If the image is not clear enough, possibly add a bit of sharpening.
[Sharpen is still found in filters in AP.]
Again not too much as print already includes reproduction degradation
from the photo-to-print process.

Usually full page images are so large in size that image reduction might be an option.
All in an effort to try and keep it as original as possible. :)

Original Scan:

http://img194.imagevenue.com/loc260/th_63521_Wish_No21_Back_00_123_260lo.jpg (http://img194.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63521_Wish_No21_Back_00_123_260lo.jp g)


Modified Scan:

http://img192.imagevenue.com/loc506/th_63532_Wish_No21_Back_01_123_506lo.jpg (http://img192.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63532_Wish_No21_Back_01_123_506lo.jp g)


My work is not professional by any means. It passes as acceptable.
For years I struggled with the basic mechanics, the original image.
If I could get that scanned without damage, that was more than half the battle.

Once the image is scanned acceptably, without flaw in a decent manner, and it is time to process.....
the eye of the artist should not overstate the eye of the photographer. :cool:
(i.e.; less is more)


http://img101.imagevenue.com/loc819/th_65625_L0_Jana_09_7_123_819lo.jpg (http://img101.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=65625_L0_Jana_09_7_123_819lo.jpg)

[DubSalute]

Hi hartwig,

moved the discussion here the section where you posted is for step by step explanations.

Don't have much knowledge about scanning but when you don't have Photoshop there are freeware alternatives:

Gimp
Free open source graphics program very advanced like Photoshop.
Runs on Windows 2000 and above, Mac and Linux.

http://www.gimp.org/



Paint.NET
http://www.getpaint.net/index.html

http://img221.imagevenue.com/loc103/th_36300_PaintNet_123_103lo.jpg (http://img221.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=36300_PaintNet_123_103lo.jpg)

Small free open source graphics program. (1.6 MB)
Little brother of Gimp but got some nice features, enough for all your basic and bit more advanced image editing needs.

Runs on Windows XP SP2+/Server 2003 SP1+/Vista
You will need .NET Framework 2.0 but that is probably already installed, if not you can get it at the Windows update website in the Custom updates/Optional section.
http://www.update.microsoft.com/
or on this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/results.aspx?pocId=&freetext=Microsoft%20.NET%20Framework%20Version%20 2.0&DisplayLang=en

You can download it here:
http://www.getpaint.net/download.html

[tuffy]

I use an old HP ScanJet 3300C

Original Scan:

http://img194.imagevenue.com/loc260/th_63521_Wish_No21_Back_00_123_260lo.jpg (http://img194.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63521_Wish_No21_Back_00_123_260lo.jp g)



I have some badly damaged magazines like yours.

But you can restore it. Look at this:

http://img183.imagevenue.com/loc94/th_31313_Wish_No21_Back_01_modified_Tuffy_123_94lo .jpg (http://img183.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=31313_Wish_No21_Back_01_modified_Tuf fy_123_94lo.jpg)

Tuffy

[ww2k]

I have some badly damaged magazines like yours.

But you can restore it. Look at this:

http://img183.imagevenue.com/loc94/th_31313_Wish_No21_Back_01_modified_Tuffy_123_94lo .jpg (http://img183.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=31313_Wish_No21_Back_01_modified_Tuf fy_123_94lo.jpg)

Tuffy


Tuffy,
That's amazing!! What did you do to get your image so clean???

cheers -ww2k

[tuffy]

Tuffy,
That's amazing!! What did you do to get your image so clean???

cheers -ww2k

Thanks ww2k and trip.

I used the Rubber Stamp tool in Photoshop.

The rubber stamp tool lets you paint a copy of color into the same image.

The Clone options of the rubber stamp tool make a sample, and paint an exact duplicate of that image.

So I choosed the color pixels from a clear area and cloned over the damaged area.

It's very time consuming work at the first time, but you can learn fast how to do it.

I can say today that it's very easy to do and you get very good results.

Tuffy

[Trip]

Thanks ww2k and trip.

I used the Rubber Stamp tool in Photoshop.

The rubber stamp tool lets you paint a copy of color into the same image.

The Clone options of the rubber stamp tool make a sample, and paint an exact duplicate of that image.

So I choosed the color pixels from a clear area and cloned over the damaged area.

It's very time consuming work at the first time, but you can learn fast how to do it.

I can say today that it's very easy to do and you get very good results.

Tuffy

Very nice! You are a true master of that technique. I use the stamp tool for simple removal, like the lines of the centerfold in the last scan of my post. However I could not imagine the hours it would take to do that old magazine. Outstanding work, thank you. :)

[Sadielover]

Here's a guide I wrote some while back. Some tips worth knowing in there.

*SADIELOVER'S PRO SCANNING TIPS*


DO

...Line the back of the page you're scanning with a thick, dark card or plastic. Most porn magazines have pretty shitty paper quality, being thin and transparent, and the light from the scanner will likely add images from the reverse side to the scan. Putting a dark, non-reflective, opaque layer directly behind the page will ensure no ghosting of the opposite side. The only downside of this is that your scanned image will lose some contrast, but this can be fixed in any paint prog.

...Bump up the contrast anyway. Most scanners provide washed out, low-contrast images. Brighten them up. But don't overdo it. Incrementally add contrast/brightness accordingly until the picture resembles the image scanned. If the whites are obscuring detail, you're going too far. You'll get a knack for it. If you're feeling brave, adjust the RGB values too. It's common for scanners to add a fine layer of red or/and yellow. If you're careful, you can remove these for amazing results. Again, show restraint, or your babe can end up looking like She-Hulk.

...Resize the image. For two reasons. First, the freshly-scanned image will likely be unnecessarily large to keep/browse, and it should be, because you want to capture all that awesome girly detail from the page. Secondly, the unresized image will be full of pixelly grain, which looks bad. Resizing will iron the grain out leaving a natural, photographic quality. For reference, I scan at 180dp with a magazine filter on, then resize to 1000 pixels or nearest hundred vertically or horizontally. I crop individual panels and save them as seperate images, but some folks just scan entire pages and leave them as is, and they look pretty good too. It's your call.

...Paint in gaps and tears/paint over creases. Not all of our pornography has survived the years of vigourous masturbation intact. A lot of mine have missing corners and ungainly folds from sweaty, desperate grips and careless storage. Painting can be also essential for joining halves of a double-page spread, as the print of the magazine will often have a fraction of the image missing in the centre. Painting is hard, but if you're good, well worth it. With a duplicate brush you can use a combination of unspoiled areas and your fertile imagination to recreate nonexistant walls, carpets, tables, props, clothes and even the model herself photorealistically. It's tricky to learn though, and can look distractingly bad if you fuck it up.

...Weight the scanner to flatten the image. You only really need to do this if your pages are crinkly (ahem), but if they are, flattening will make the world of difference.

...Save your image (jpeg, duh) in relatively high quality. No point taking all this great advice to heart if you're gonna file it for posterity as artifactual nothingness.

...Add details in the filename. Kind of hypocritical of me to say so because I often don't do it, but putting details of the magazine scanned (vol no. etc) into the filename can be useful. And a unique scanner handle can be a godsend for finding more of your work, which if you're good, we'll want to.


DON'T

...Add your massive, garish, shitty, l33t MSPaint scanner logo and/or frame. If you're so wretched that you gotta let the world know that you're the guy who scanned the naked chick, then do it tastefully, with a little transparent logo in the corner. Better yet, don't do it at all, put your scanning handle in the filename instead.

...Airbrush. A real man likes skin textures, hair, pimples, freckles, moles, wrinkles, blemishes, stretchmarks, sags, etc. Reality is sexy. By all means paint out any stray dust or fluff or hair that has gotten trapped in your scanner, but leave the model as nature intended. I'll read FHM if I wanna jerk off to a waxwork.

...Alter her makeup. Please. I've actually seen this attempted. I have nightmares still. For the love of god, don't even try.

...Paint out text. The name of the model, photographer, edition date, blurbs, page numbers etc are useful to collectors. Also, few things are as distracting as a GIANT FUCKING BLACK RECTANGLE next to the babe showing her stuff. I know literature scares a lot of pornhounds, but they gotta learn to read sometime.

The effort is well worth it. Some of mine:

http://img223.imagevenue.com/loc132/th_06372_cheri05_123_132lo.jpg (http://img223.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06372_cheri05_123_132lo.jpg)http://img239.imagevenue.com/loc568/th_06373_cheri06_3_123_568lo.jpg (http://img239.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06373_cheri06_3_123_568lo.jpg)http://img164.imagevenue.com/loc896/th_06648_highsociety07_2_123_896lo.jpg (http://img164.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06648_highsociety07_2_123_896lo.jpg) http://img220.imagevenue.com/loc17/th_06659_cheri01_123_17lo.jpg (http://img220.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06659_cheri01_123_17lo.jpg)http://img198.imagevenue.com/loc62/th_06660_highsociety13_123_62lo.jpg (http://img198.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06660_highsociety13_123_62lo.jpg)

http://img160.imagevenue.com/loc641/th_06379_cheri09_123_641lo.jpg (http://img160.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06379_cheri09_123_641lo.jpg)http://img129.imagevenue.com/loc626/th_06646_highsociety06_3_123_626lo.jpg (http://img129.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06646_highsociety06_3_123_626lo.jpg) http://img230.imagevenue.com/loc496/th_06375_foxp01_123_496lo.jpg (http://img230.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06375_foxp01_123_496lo.jpg)http://img223.imagevenue.com/loc30/th_06378_cheri06_2_123_30lo.jpg (http://img223.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06378_cheri06_2_123_30lo.jpg)http://img25.imagevenue.com/loc916/th_07137_knave01_123_916lo.jpg (http://img25.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07137_knave01_123_916lo.jpg)

http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc661/th_06666_highsociety06_4_123_661lo.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06666_highsociety06_4_123_661lo.jpg) http://img25.imagevenue.com/loc762/th_06668_highsociety07_123_762lo.jpg (http://img25.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06668_highsociety07_123_762lo.jpg)ht tp://img137.imagevenue.com/loc852/th_06684_menonly14_123_852lo.jpg (http://img137.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06684_menonly14_123_852lo.jpg)http://img121.imagevenue.com/loc880/th_06698_mensworld01_2_123_880lo.jpg (http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06698_mensworld01_2_123_880lo.jpg)ht tp://img151.imagevenue.com/loc1191/th_06708_penthouse04_123_1191lo.jpg (http://img151.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06708_penthouse04_123_1191lo.jpg)

http://img151.imagevenue.com/loc652/th_06716_highsociety17_2_123_652lo.jpg (http://img151.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06716_highsociety17_2_123_652lo.jpg) http://img151.imagevenue.com/loc944/th_07061_mensworld11_123_944lo.jpg (http://img151.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07061_mensworld11_123_944lo.jpg)http ://img198.imagevenue.com/loc242/th_07078_cheri06_4_123_242lo.jpg (http://img198.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07078_cheri06_4_123_242lo.jpg)http://img194.imagevenue.com/loc579/th_07085_highsociety03_123_579lo.jpg (http://img194.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07085_highsociety03_123_579lo.jpg)ht tp://img129.imagevenue.com/loc792/th_07095_penthouse06_123_792lo.jpg (http://img129.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07095_penthouse06_123_792lo.jpg)

http://img196.imagevenue.com/loc173/th_07097_fox19_123_173lo.jpg (http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07097_fox19_123_173lo.jpg)http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc512/th_07109_cheri06_123_512lo.jpg (http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07109_cheri06_123_512lo.jpg)http://img185.imagevenue.com/loc460/th_07116_highsociety05_123_460lo.jpg (http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07116_highsociety05_123_460lo.jpg)ht tp://img185.imagevenue.com/loc27/th_07123_highsociety08_123_27lo.jpg (http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07123_highsociety08_123_27lo.jpg)htt p://img193.imagevenue.com/loc89/th_07129_highsociety18_123_89lo.jpg (http://img193.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07129_highsociety18_123_89lo.jpg)

[hartwig]

wow thanks everybody for those great hints :)
They basically confirmed my philosophy (les is more...) but still I learned some some helpful details!

You can cehck out my work in this thread, feedback and tips on how I can improve my technique would be highly appreciated:
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showthread.php?t=22567&page=1

Thanks, keep it up guys!!

[Minimoo]

Funny how people seem to not read the original question with its information. This thread contains several "hints" to image altering/authoring software, including Photoshop, Paint, Paintshop Pro, ACDSee etc. All of which are useless to the first poster, since...


Ok, here's how I scan:
1) I scan from [B]The Gimp using a Canon Canoscan ScanLide 90


:mad::(
[end rant]

Hartwig, there are several tutorials around the web for imageretouching using GIMP (http://www.gimp.org). GIMP (http://www.gimp.org) itself is very powerful to do all that is needed for the photos to look great. It is not easy to use (nor is Photoshop), but practice makes perfect. Read the manuals and go "trial-and-error", after a couple of hours you will master GIMP (http://www.gimp.org) in a way that satisfies you. I have taken the pain to learn, and it does pay off.

Retouching:
http://gimps.de/en/tutorials/gimp/picture-photo-image/index.htm

GIMP also has batch processing of images, but I have not tried it.

Happy scanning! :)

[gordian_knot]

Sadielover's tips are all good. I also use black card between pages. The only things I would add are to scan at a reasonably high resolution, like 300dpi. If you then reduce this in an editor to, say, 150 dpi, in order to save space, you usually don't notice the difference on a monitor and it will look much better than if the original scan is at 150dpi. I like to end up with 150dpi scans because I turn magazines into pdfs and my pdf maker doesn't like higher resolutions.

Secondly, a cheaper alternative to Photoshop is Paint Shop Pro. It's a more basic program but has all the filters you really need, including the fantastic Clone tool for getting rid of tears and creases. I've tried Gimp and I think psp is a lot easier to get to grips with. Using filters is always a judgement call, sometimes they look better and sometimes they don't. If I use anything at all, at most it'll be a basic colour correction and sharpening.

Lastly, not everyone does it, but it's a nice touch to crop and rotate your scans if your scans are like mine and often not quite square :)

[Sadielover]

Secondly, a cheaper alternative to Photoshop is Paint Shop Pro. It's a more basic program but has all the filters you really need, including the fantastic Clone tool for getting rid of tears and creases.

Absolutely. I use Paint Shop Pro for every aspect of post-scanning (stitching, cleaning, repairing etc) and it's better than any substitute prog. The browse function is fantastic also, probably the best picture viewer in its own right that I've come across.

[lovegod]

Ive got a basic a4 ? scanner
I wish it was bigger as newspaper (and mag) pics are
often bigger and I have to chop off legs and feet.

The settings are pretty basic

I set the pixels to 300 dpi

I set the contrast to + 35

I set the brightness to - 30

and that is basically it
It usu gives good results.

the settings may seem a bit crazy , but they
work, give them a try

the files are big say 1.5 meg so I use
windows resizer to get them down to around 100 k.

(you don t seem to lose any pic quality )


I ve often thought there must be scanners out there with
more elaborate software that can give better results.

So many people are scanning around the world, day after
day, you d think there be a range and some rolls royce
models somewhere, but Ive yet to find them.

They could make scanning a pleasure and an art instead
of a drudge , which is what it is with only a small window
to see the preview of a scan... things could be so much
different with full screen prieviews and options to
change a range of settings.

Instead all I have is contrast and brightness

A scanner with wings or edges would be good too
to give support when scanning pics in books etc

[hartwig]

Ive got a basic a4 ? scanner
I wish it was bigger as newspaper (and mag) pics are
often bigger and I have to chop off legs and feet.


Me too, I also got an A4 scanner, so I scan the single pages and assemble them afterwards, sometimes that works really fine, sometimes not. Most of the time the pictures do not use both pages and are separate anyway.



I set the pixels to 300 dpi

I set the contrast to + 35

I set the brightness to - 30

I gotta give that a shot, thx!



A scanner with wings or edges would be good too
to give support when scanning pics in books etc
I use books with the appropriate thickness to cover that.

[Mushashi7]

*SADIELOVER'S PRO SCANNING TIPS*


...Line the back of the page you're scanning with a thick, dark card or plastic. Most porn magazines have pretty shitty paper quality, being thin and transparent, and the light from the scanner will likely add images from the reverse side to the scan. Putting a dark, non-reflective, opaque layer directly behind the page will ensure no ghosting of the opposite side. The only downside of this is that your scanned image will lose some contrast, but this can be fixed in any paint prog.

Use a completely black piece of paper on the opposite site of the image you want to scan,
as Sadielover suggests. It has to be mat and not glossy!
Glosssy paper will reflect the light and send it back through the paper and light up the opposite side.

It is common logic that black paper will absorb the light rays and not reflect.


When we speak of colors and light everything in this world is made of 'filters'.
A flower is red because it keeps the blue and yellow light - and sends the red color back.
A leaf on a tree is green because it keeps the red light and sends back the yellow and blue light to your eyes.


There are only three colors in this world:
Blue, Red and Yellow.
All other colors are made of these three, mixed to the nuance you see.

White has all three colors. Black has none of them.

[karenwhitefan]

I use an old HP ScanJet 3300C

http://img232.imagevenue.com/loc231/th_66598_Scanner_HP3300_122_231lo.jpg (http://img232.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66598_Scanner_HP3300_122_231lo.jpg)

Within the HP PrecisionScan LT Software,
is a helpful tool called "Descreen Printed Originals / Slow Speed"....

If this is not selected, well that is how those nasty yellow lines appear.
Chroma damage - Horribly lame results.
Everyone must have seen those before, when viewing posts.

Select that option, to get rid of them using this particular device.


==================

After scanning I use exclusively Adobe Photoshop for any or all enhancements.
Currently running versions 4.0, 5.5, and CS.

Unlike many of my old pals scanning for the newsgroups, I do not like the AP 'unsharp mask' filter.
Although it is still something to consider, because it eliminates artifacts, especially in beat up old magazines.

I basically re-position for symmetry, perhaps increase contrast
and a bit of luma, (brightness) but not too much,
and depending on the print, reduce or increase (chroma) saturation.

If the image is not clear enough, possibly add a bit of sharpening.
[Sharpen is still found in filters in AP.]
Again not too much as print already includes reproduction degradation
from the photo-to-print process.

Usually full page images are so large in size that image reduction might be an option.
All in an effort to try and keep it as original as possible. :)

Original Scan:

http://img194.imagevenue.com/loc260/th_63521_Wish_No21_Back_00_123_260lo.jpg (http://img194.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63521_Wish_No21_Back_00_123_260lo.jp g)


Modified Scan:

http://img192.imagevenue.com/loc506/th_63532_Wish_No21_Back_01_123_506lo.jpg (http://img192.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63532_Wish_No21_Back_01_123_506lo.jp g)


My work is not professional by any means. It passes as acceptable.
For years I struggled with the basic mechanics, the original image.
If I could get that scanned without damage, that was more than half the battle.

Once the image is scanned acceptably, without flaw in a decent manner, and it is time to process.....
the eye of the artist should not overstate the eye of the photographer. :cool:
(i.e.; less is more)


http://img101.imagevenue.com/loc819/th_65625_L0_Jana_09_7_123_819lo.jpg (http://img101.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=65625_L0_Jana_09_7_123_819lo.jpg)
Hello.

I'm a bit late to this thread so I most likely will be talking to myself. Anyhow I downloaded this picture the other night and spent a little bit of time doodling with it.

Scanning and picture restoration is my bag so to speak. Better results are possible with an original scan.

http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=12930_Wish_No21_Back_00_rfb_123_416l o.JPG

I'll take a look through the messages in this thread and see if there is anything I can add.

Apologies for the picture not showing. It is there though. I have problems with Imagevenue.

Regards.

[hartwig]

Nice work! How much time did you spend to get that quality?

[Darth Joules]

Use a completely black piece of paper on the opposite site of the image you want to scan,
as Sadielover suggests. It has to be mat and not glossy!
Glosssy paper will reflect the light and send it back through the paper and light up the opposite side.

It is common logic that black paper will absorb the light rays and not reflect.

Your colour theory is sound, but in practice it isn't that simple as the page being scanned acts as a "filter" between the scanner's light source and the card. Thus both dark and light areas can be over exaggerated, i.e. too much or too little contrast.

A black sheet of paper (I use thin card) is far from ideal in my experience from scanning. I usually use two different sheets of coloured card. One slate grey sheet for black and white pages (both sides), and one brown sheet like milk chocolate brown (mustn't be reddish or yellowish) for all colour pages. Both sheets strike as much of a neutral ground as possible to minimise "ghosting", in fact the brown sheet works a treat for me for both B/W and colour pages. Try it. ;)

[SolarJM]

I've done a tutorial here which has worked really well so far.

http://magazinemodels.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=110613&p=3&topicID=16725989

[lovegod]

i VE GOT photo shop, you reckon I should scan with that ?

[SolarJM]

Yeah Photoshop should be ok.
I dont know if CS2 has got Photomerge, but I use CS3 because the photomerge takes out alot of the headache when it come to stitching the images together (especially when the image is across two pages)

Here's a complete scan of M**F**r vol 34/08 I've done using my methods.
http://rapidshare.com/files/134822966/MF3408.rar.html

Let me know what you think of them

regards
SJM

[SolarJM]

Due to the original forum I posted my tutorial closing down soon I have moved my step-by-step guide here.

Right ok...you might've seen some scans i've posted that I've altered in a way to merge pages and remove the seams. Here's how I do it with examples along the way.

1) Get yourself a copy of P*otoshop CS3 (If you google this with R****share at the end of it you'll find a couple of blogs or forums with RS links)

2) Install 'PS CS3' and then get your scanner ready.

3) Get a peice of dark paper to use and take the staples out of your magazine carefully (these can be replaced later) get your image that is printed over two pages with a seam in the middle and scan you image with the dark paper face down over the top of the page (this reduces lighter colours from the opposite side of the page showing through the scan) using an 'unsharp mask', 'no trimming', 'highest dpi' and 'at 7% scale'. Your scanner might use different terminology for these. Make sure the image is as straight as possible (if not, then preview the scan and check the alignment with marquee tool on the scanner option and see if the lines agree with the seam.)

4) Click scan and wait. (If you have an A4 scanner its best to scan a single page into two halves because some scanners and pages differ in size and this will give you the whole page in segments rather than a single page with an inch missing from the sides)

5) Open the images in PS and do the following goto Filter>noise>despeckle and despeckle the image. Then goto Image>image size and choose your resolution (I use 940 for height) keep all the boxes ticked and select from the menu 'Bicubic Sharper'. Then sharpen the image by going to Filter>sharpen>sharpen

Here's what you should have so far:
http://img242.imagevenue.com/loc471/th_50402_1_123_471lo.jpg (http://img242.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50402_1_123_471lo.jpg) http://img7.imagevenue.com/loc1023/th_50412_1_1_123_1023lo.jpg (http://img7.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50412_1_1_123_1023lo.jpg) http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc736/th_50535_2_123_736lo.jpg (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50535_2_123_736lo.jpg) http://img170.imagevenue.com/loc671/th_50547_2_2_123_671lo.jpg (http://img170.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50547_2_2_123_671lo.jpg)

6) Now for the fun part. Open up PS and goto File>Automate>Photomerge. a window will popup with some options. Select 'Interactive Layout' and make sure 'Blend images together' is ticked. Click on browse and select both images of the same page like the ones I have done below. (Tip: Hold down CTRL and select both images you want merging) Then OK to them. Wait a moment while PS does it's merge. When its done, click ok to it.

http://img141.imagevenue.com/loc1007/th_50689_3_123_1007lo.jpg (http://img141.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50689_3_123_1007lo.jpg) http://img222.imagevenue.com/loc34/th_50698_3_3_123_34lo.jpg (http://img222.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50698_3_3_123_34lo.jpg)

After you've done that save the image and you'll have something like this:

http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc946/th_51059_3_123_946lo.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51059_3_123_946lo.jpg)

Then do the same for the other page, and you'll end up with two complete pages ready for editing and further merging like so.

http://img230.imagevenue.com/loc45/th_51638_5_123_45lo.jpg (http://img230.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51638_5_123_45lo.jpg) http://img19.imagevenue.com/loc1163/th_51641_5_5_123_1163lo.jpg (http://img19.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51641_5_5_123_1163lo.jpg)

7) Crop the excess you dont want so you end up with your two images. Goto Photomerge again and select Interactive Layout but dont select Blend. when you've done that and OK'ed to it try and align the images as close and as accurate as possible ready for editing. Now were getting there. Thats the hardest part done. Here's what I have saved so far:

http://img218.imagevenue.com/loc517/th_51772_6_123_517lo.jpg (http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51772_6_123_517lo.jpg)

8) Now all we got to do is edit the images using a few tools in PS. The first is the clone stamp tool (from the menu on the left). Hold down alt to define a source point to clone and click on the area you want to change like so: (This tool is also great for getting rid of printing artifacts and tears, seams, etc) Tip: Use the slider underneath the mini window to zoom in + out.

http://img238.imagevenue.com/loc341/th_51836_7_123_341lo.jpg (http://img238.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51836_7_123_341lo.jpg)

9) Now with that done, we can clean up using the 'Healing brush Tool' (It's on the left hand side menu and looks like a plaster). And just use it to blend the stamped patterns you did earlier to correspond with the gradient of the surrounding colours.

10) Looking good now:) ...ok now do a final crop, and adjust the colours a bit using contrast and brightness. To do this goto Image>Adjustments>Brightness/Contrast and then alter the colours to suit you need. Then save.......

Your all done. Here's the final product:

http://img224.imagevenue.com/loc380/th_52017_8_123_380lo.jpg (http://img224.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=52017_8_123_380lo.jpg)

I know this might seem a bit long-winded but its not as bad as you might think when you do it a few times you get the hang of it. As you can see, the final result is a big difference to the picture and as perfect as you can get from a scanned magazine with two parts.

This is a good method for archiving your magazines. Also try and save your finished scan as a *.png format as this will keep most of the quality that *.jpg loses.

This was a quick tutorial. Any questions or suggestions let me know or pm me if you need help with a certain part.

Thanks
Solar

[Darth Joules]

With tip #5 above you shouldn't have to use the despeckle filter if your image was scanned from high grade paper (e.g. Pl*yb*y, Jap mags). If your getting too much noise in your scans from quality pages lower your scan resolution (dpi). As a rule I scan at 240-300 dpi for the quality glossy pages, 120-180 for the low grade stuff. I only use the despeckle filter with images scanned from low grade paper as found in newspapers or tabloid/cheap magazines particularly when lowering the dpi isn't going to help any further because the image is already very small.

With tip #3 use a Descreen filter when scanning to help eliminate the Moire effect. Sometimes you'll find when scanning at a too higher of a resolution (dpi) you'll get a Moire effect despite using Descreen. Obviously you don't need Descreen with prints and transparencies. And if you picture is wonky after scanning just take a little time with (Photoshop) Image > Rotate Canvas > Arbitary... to straighten it up, most times I cannot be arsed to make sure the source is dead straight under the scanner lid. Oh, and save your scanned images as either TIFF or BMP. I does suck up hard drive space, but your images will be a better quality source before editing and finally saving as a JPG.

Sometimes though no matter what you do you cannot cure problems like in this stitched together centerfold image below (work in progress BTW):

http://img18.imagevenue.com/loc863/th_55686_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01a_123_863lo .jpg (http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=55686_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01 a_123_863lo.jpg)

The ink is stronger on one side than the other thanks to how the pages were printed. Not to mention slight moisture damage along where the spine was. It's gonna require a lot of work to blend out the colour differences.

;) One last tip. Buy a bottle of Isopropanol. It's perfect for spotlessly cleaning the glass bed of your scanner of greasey finger prints and any muck you cannot see but your scanner may pickup. You can even clean dirty disks with it. I also frequently use a lint free cloth between batches of scans to remove any particles that may have either floated in or been left behind by the magazine, etc. Beats editing them out later.

[Johnny Bravo]

A quick question. Does the scanner driver have much bearing on the quality of your scans? I have an old Mustek scanner but finding a driver for XP was a task and a half. I finally found one but the quality of the scans I'm getting is pretty awful. I've used a lower dpi and Descreen (I'm trying to scan old copies of Men's World and Tease) but I'm still getting ropey results.

[Darth Joules]

A quick question. Does the scanner driver have much bearing on the quality of your scans?

Not really. The quality of the scanner's mechanical ability to copy different scanable media does. This good, but old, review (http://www.behardware.com/articles/552-1/roundup-6-scanners.html) shows how much different models of scanner can deviate in their resulting scans (see page 7 of the review for magazine scan results). The scanning software can have some bearing.

I don't have any comparisons to show but the difference between scans from my Epson Perfection 3200 Photo and CanonScan LiDe 50 is noticeable enough that the former is better at scanning pages. Despite that I use the CanonScan LiDe 50 to do the donkey work of my scans due it's very long bulb life by using LEDs isntead of a fluoresent tube. The Epson scanner gets used only for professional work.

[karenwhitefan]

Hello Hartwig.

The picture took about one-and a half hours.

[Johnny Bravo]

Not really. The quality of the scanner's mechanical ability to copy different scanable media does. This good, but old, review (http://www.behardware.com/articles/552-1/roundup-6-scanners.html) shows how much different models of scanner can deviate in their resulting scans (see page 7 of the review for magazine scan results). The scanning software can have some bearing.

I don't have any comparisons to show but the difference between scans from my Epson Perfection 3200 Photo and CanonScan LiDe 50 is noticeable enough that the former is better at scanning pages. Despite that I use the CanonScan LiDe 50 to do the donkey work of my scans due it's very long bulb life by using LEDs isntead of a fluoresent tube. The Epson scanner gets used only for professional work.
Thanks for that. I ask only because on an old win98 laptop I have, the scans looked much smoother and I didn't need descreen. Unfortunately, I had a drive crash on that and can't get the scanner to reinstall, no matter what. No power and the Mustek has no external PSU.

[karenwhitefan]

With tip #5 above you shouldn't have to use the despeckle filter if your image was scanned from high grade paper (e.g. Pl*yb*y, Jap mags). If your getting too much noise in your scans from quality pages lower your scan resolution (dpi). As a rule I scan at 240-300 dpi for the quality glossy pages, 120-180 for the low grade stuff. I only use the despeckle filter with images scanned from low grade paper as found in newspapers or tabloid/cheap magazines particularly when lowering the dpi isn't going to help any further because the image is already very small.

With tip #3 use a Descreen filter when scanning to help eliminate the Moire effect. Sometimes you'll find when scanning at a too higher of a resolution (dpi) you'll get a Moire effect despite using Descreen. Obviously you don't need Descreen with prints and transparencies. And if you picture is wonky after scanning just take a little time with (Photoshop) Image > Rotate Canvas > Arbitary... to straighten it up, most times I cannot be arsed to make sure the source is dead straight under the scanner lid. Oh, and save your scanned images as either TIFF or BMP. I does suck up hard drive space, but your images will be a better quality source before editing and finally saving as a JPG.

Sometimes though no matter what you do you cannot cure problems like in this stitched together centerfold image below (work in progress BTW):

http://img18.imagevenue.com/loc863/th_55686_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01a_123_863lo .jpg (http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=55686_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01 a_123_863lo.jpg)

The ink is stronger on one side than the other thanks to how the pages were printed. Not to mention slight moisture damage along where the spine was. It's gonna require a lot of work to blend out the colour differences.

;) One last tip. Buy a bottle of Isopropanol. It's perfect for spotlessly cleaning the glass bed of your scanner of greasey finger prints and any muck you cannot see but your scanner may pickup. You can even clean dirty disks with it. I also frequently use a lint free cloth between batches of scans to remove any particles that may have either floated in or been left behind by the magazine, etc. Beats editing them out later.
Hello Darth.

Can I suggest that you have commited the cardinal sin of joining (Not stitching. Yuk!!!) two halves of a picture before you have matched their brightness, contrast, intensity and saturation and in doing so given yourself lots more work to do. BIG,BIG NO, NO!

Regards.

[Trip]

two halves of a picture before you have matched their brightness, contrast, intensity and saturation

That's a problem to have to deal with in scanning,
as well as any image compositing in photoshop.
I usually write down the values of each, and match them.

[Darth Joules]

Can I suggest that you have commited the cardinal sin of joining (Not stitching. Yuk!!!) two halves of a picture before you have matched their brightness, contrast, intensity and saturation and in doing so given yourself lots more work to do. BIG,BIG NO, NO!

Well I did say it was still "work in progress". ;) Unfortunately playing with the values will only do so much for matching those two halves because of the print tone variance goes one way, right-to-left, in one half and the other way round in the other half. This is clearly visible with both Natalie's arms at the join.

I can put up the two original halves of the scans if anyone wants a crack at it?

[karenwhitefan]

Hello Darth.

Yes, upload both halves please.

[Darth Joules]

@karenwhitefan Oops... :( looks like I've accidentally deleted the two halves from my scan archive. I'll have to rescan them both again and I'll PM you when I do.

[lovegod]

im using a bog standard scanner rright now
the only adjustments are for light
contrast
and dpi

there must be some scanner somewhere with better
software that gives you more control and maybe
a bigger preview picture so you have an idea what
your result will be

any advice for a purchase ?
Im on xp

[karenwhitefan]

@karenwhitefan Oops... :( looks like I've accidentally deleted the two halves from my scan archive. I'll have to rescan them both again and I'll PM you when I do.
Hello Darth.

I've done a quick fix.

http://img245.imagevenue.com/loc362/th_53530_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01a_3_123_362 lo.JPG (http://img245.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=53530_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01 a_3_123_362lo.JPG)

[img=http://img245.imagevenue.com/loc362/th_53530_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01a_3_123_362 lo.JPG] (http://img245.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=53530_NJ_Straps_Lack_Und_Leder_10_01 a_3_123_362lo.JPG)

I've deliberately left a couple of errors. Just in case any of you spot them and think I've been slack.

[karenwhitefan]

im using a bog standard scanner rright now
the only adjustments are for light
contrast
and dpi

there must be some scanner somewhere with better
software that gives you more control and maybe
a bigger preview picture so you have an idea what
your result will be

any advice for a purchase ?
Im on xp
Hello Lovegod.

There is an article in this thread which shows a review of the scanner I use. The scan preview window is quite large. It's the Epson Perfection 2480. It might still be available.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/552-10/roundup-6-scanners.html

I must stress though that I am a firm believer that all corrections to brightness, contrast, saturation etc is much better done using graphics software Photopaint, Paintshop Pro etc as they allow you to see in more detail changes that you have made and also allow you to undo the changes.

[hartwig]

Thanks for this outstanding guide, it was reason enough for me to switch over to PS CS3 and am just amazed what you can do with that! A real quantum leap for me, thx!!! :)

Due to the original forum I posted my tutorial closing down soon I have moved my step-by-step guide here.

Right ok...you might've seen some scans i've posted that I've altered in a way to merge pages and remove the seams. Here's how I do it with examples along the way.

1) Get yourself a copy of P*otoshop CS3 (If you google this with R****share at the end of it you'll find a couple of blogs or forums with RS links)

2) Install 'PS CS3' and then get your scanner ready.

3) Get a peice of dark paper to use and take the staples out of your magazine carefully (these can be replaced later) get your image that is printed over two pages with a seam in the middle and scan you image with the dark paper face down over the top of the page (this reduces lighter colours from the opposite side of the page showing through the scan) using an 'unsharp mask', 'no trimming', 'highest dpi' and 'at 7% scale'. Your scanner might use different terminology for these. Make sure the image is as straight as possible (if not, then preview the scan and check the alignment with marquee tool on the scanner option and see if the lines agree with the seam.)

4) Click scan and wait. (If you have an A4 scanner its best to scan a single page into two halves because some scanners and pages differ in size and this will give you the whole page in segments rather than a single page with an inch missing from the sides)

5) Open the images in PS and do the following goto Filter>noise>despeckle and despeckle the image. Then goto Image>image size and choose your resolution (I use 940 for height) keep all the boxes ticked and select from the menu 'Bicubic Sharper'. Then sharpen the image by going to Filter>sharpen>sharpen

Here's what you should have so far:
http://img242.imagevenue.com/loc471/th_50402_1_123_471lo.jpg (http://img242.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50402_1_123_471lo.jpg) http://img7.imagevenue.com/loc1023/th_50412_1_1_123_1023lo.jpg (http://img7.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50412_1_1_123_1023lo.jpg) http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc736/th_50535_2_123_736lo.jpg (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50535_2_123_736lo.jpg) http://img170.imagevenue.com/loc671/th_50547_2_2_123_671lo.jpg (http://img170.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50547_2_2_123_671lo.jpg)

.....


Solar

[hartwig]

Scanning double sided mags with PS

Unlike in SolarJM's example (again thanks for the great hints!) we have different or one picture that spread over to pages and have NO content gaps:

1) At first scan both single sides you want to become on image making the scan overlapping a bit so that PS can auto align them.
Scan one, then the other and then paste the second into the first, as a new layer.
2) Auto-Align them by selecting both layer (use CTRL when clicking both layers), then chose Edit > Auto-Align Layers
3) Now after one another crop the layers so that only a minimal part is overlapping, but do not cut away too much because the blending (next step) will not look that good anymore.
4) Select both layers again and choose Edit > Auto-Blend Layers
5) Merge the layers
6) Crop the image removing all the edges.

Voilà, you have one beautiful image that has no viewable break.

You can find examples in all my scans, take this e.g.:
http://img142.imagevenue.com/loc689/th_25881_mc77_01__123_689lo.jpg (http://img142.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=25881_mc77_01__123_689lo.jpg)

[gordian_knot]

Any experts know how to achieve the same results in Paint Shop Pro? I've struggled with these problems with sometimes unsatisfactory results. I like psp for it's balance of features/ease of use, but maybe it's time to move on.

[karenwhitefan]

Hello Gordian Knot.

There are examples of how to use P*otoshop CS3 in this thread describing how to join pages which should help you. From what I gather the software is free.

The software I use doesn't have the auto features as mentioned in items in this thread. I join them the old fashioned way.

[karenwhitefan]

Any experts know how to achieve the same results in Paint Shop Pro? I've struggled with these problems with sometimes unsatisfactory results. I like psp for it's balance of features/ease of use, but maybe it's time to move on.
Hello gordian_knot

Has anybody offered you any help with your problem yet?

The software P*otoshop CS3 mentioned in this thread, might be something that you should maybe take a look at.

[gordian_knot]

Yes I've grabbed it, but not yet installed it. I will though, soon.

[hartwig]

A hint to PS3:
look out for tutorial vids on the internet and make yourself familiar with the keyboard shortcuts and customize them to your own needs! :)

[cj1]

I use Gimp 2.6 with the xsane scanner plugin. It takes a little while to learn gimp but it works fine. There is also a gimp plugin for panoramas that works for joining scanned pages.

One trick I found is the Colors>Levels tool. From it you can use the eyedropper tool to pick black and white points on the image and the colors are adjusted accordingly. I imagine PS has a similar tool as well.

[The Old Hacker]

[COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="3"]When we speak of colors and light [B]everything in this world is made of 'filters'.
A flower is red because it keeps the blue and yellow light - and sends the red color back.
A leaf on a tree is green because it keeps the red light and sends back the yellow and blue light to your eyes.


There are only three colors in this world:
Blue, Red and Yellow.
All other colors are made of these three, mixed to the nuance you see.

White has all three colors. Black has none of them.

That is only true of reflected light. Direct light, such as the computer screen you're looking at, uses red, green, and blue (the RGB model) to mix the colours you see.

Worse, printers use the colours cyan, magenta, and yellow to mix printed colours. They also use black ink because they don't (generally) print on black paper :-) That's the CMYK model.

All of this explains why getting the colours right in a scan is such a pain, because you're converting from one colour model to another. Believe me, I speak from experience: see http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showpost.php?p=726721&postcount=52.

[hartwig]

....
All of this explains why getting the colours right in a scan is such a pain, because you're converting from one colour model to another. Believe me, I speak from experience: see http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showpost.php?p=726721&postcount=52.

Hm I guess that's all true, but I also think people are having so much trouble with getting the colors right is because they tend to correct the whole image in only on run although the whole page consists of text boxes, titles and stuff that are not part of the actual pictures - the color balance might be completely different in the other parts but the scanner software or Photoshop or Gimp can not decide between them. So I guess treating the different parts differently can really help!
Here is the linked picture refurbished using PS, some color balacing, alpha and stuff and I think it looks more natural.
What do you think?

http://thumbnails12.imagebam.com/4273/60369942721039.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/60369942721039)

[The Old Hacker]

Here is the linked picture refurbished using PS, some color balacing, alpha and stuff and I think it looks more natural.
What do you think?

http://thumbnails12.imagebam.com/4273/60369942721039.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/60369942721039)

Dunno -- you'll have to ask tuffy. You've modified his picture, not mine, and I rather got the impression he thought it was fine already.

<grin>

[DARPA]

Yeah, I'm a little late chiming in on something posted nearly two years ago but I have to comment on some of Sadielover's points...

Here's a guide I wrote some while back. Some tips worth knowing in there.

DO

...Line the back of the page you're scanning with a thick, dark card or plastic. Most porn magazines have pretty shitty paper quality, being thin and transparent, and the light from the scanner will likely add images from the reverse side to the scan. Putting a dark, non-reflective, opaque layer directly behind the page will ensure no ghosting of the opposite side. The only downside of this is that your scanned image will lose some contrast, but this can be fixed in any paint prog.

I've seen this technique referred to several times but when I was scanning from 1998-2004 I never ran into this problem. Maybe it was the mags I was scanning had paper that was thick enough to avoid see through issues. But I don't think this should be an "always" rule. Know the material you're working with and you can tell where you might have to go this route and where you won't.

...Bump up the contrast anyway. Most scanners provide washed out, low-contrast images. Brighten them up. But don't overdo it. Incrementally add contrast/brightness accordingly until the picture resembles the image scanned. If the whites are obscuring detail, you're going too far. You'll get a knack for it. If you're feeling brave, adjust the RGB values too. It's common for scanners to add a fine layer of red or/and yellow. If you're careful, you can remove these for amazing results. Again, show restraint, or your babe can end up looking like She-Hulk.

I completely agree with Sadielover's diagnosis re: contrast in printed images being too low. It's not just the fault of the scanner however, the original printed images tend to have horrid contrast problems, particularly the old time hardcore mags from the late 70s early 80s.

But where Sadielover and I part company is how to go about dealing with it. I reject the use of the Brightness/Contrast adjusters as a viable solution. Brightness/Contrast, at least the version in Photoshop, is just too blunt a tool to use for a process like that which requires a more nuanced response. I strongly recommend using Level adjustment and looking at the master RGB and the sliders at either end of of the histogram (do not mess with the middle one unless there's no alternative to solving a brightness issue). If there's a contrast problem you'll see a gap between where the histogram ends and the slider lies. You'll need to move the slider to where the histogram starts appearing, keeping an eye on what's going on with your image of course so that you don't lose detail. I recommend going past the start point of the histogram if you're dealing with a large size, not yet downsized, image instead of you just adjusting levels to the starts of the histogram, because when you do downsize you may find the histogram still has gaps between the ends of the histogram and the sliders when you look at levels again even though you thought you had closed the gap.

Downsizing an image size does impact whatever work you've done to the image previously and what you thought you had accomplished, within the limits of the image at the time, has now changed and you may find yourself with new room for further changes. Which is why it's always important to not just rely on the raw numbers of the tool but to see what the actual limits are on the image itself as you make adjustments.


...Paint in gaps and tears/paint over creases. Not all of our pornography has survived the years of vigourous masturbation intact. A lot of mine have missing corners and ungainly folds from sweaty, desperate grips and careless storage. Painting can be also essential for joining halves of a double-page spread, as the print of the magazine will often have a fraction of the image missing in the centre. Painting is hard, but if you're good, well worth it. With a duplicate brush you can use a combination of unspoiled areas and your fertile imagination to recreate nonexistant walls, carpets, tables, props, clothes and even the model herself photorealistically. It's tricky to learn though, and can look distractingly bad if you fuck it up.

Unless the damage is really severe or is easily correctable, I prefer not to deal with spots and creases. Messing around in human body areas can result in an easily spotted "photoshop job" unless you're really good at it. I'm not. I can make minute adjustments using the smudge tool.

I don't recommend using painting techniques to join images spread across two pages. Instead I recommend scanning the pages this way:

1) scan page 1 with a good portion of page 2 on it, provided you aren't losing any of the image on page 1.
2) This next step is a bit hazy since I haven't done it in five years so I may not have the details correct but flip the magazine's orientation, turning it upside down (or right side up) and repeat the process by scanning page 2 with a good portion of page 1, provided you aren't losing any of the image on page 2.

What this does is scan the most territory of the main page you're scanning. Many scanners don't realize it but the scanner tends to short change one side or the other in a two page scan down a crease. This is particularly true if the mag you're scanning has a hard spine instead of a stapled one. Try this: Scan page 1 and page 2 without flipping the mag to scan either page. Then compare one of the two pages in both images. You may be surprised at what you find in terms of real estate that gets lost/squeezed/turncated near the crease by the scanner. Flipping the mag prior to scanning the other page tends to mitigate this issue, though I don't know why this is so.

More importantly, mag flipping will result in a more uniformly scanned image. If you don't flip, what you are doing is scanning each page in a different manner because they are not oriented the same way to the scanner, one is the inverse of the other. And the scanner can pick up on this little detail and the result is a bigger discrepancy in pages. You have enough to worry about in terms of the printing between the two pages being off; you don't need to add to your troubles by possibly introducing new problems by having non-uniformly scanned images.

3) take the two images and painstakingly line them up in photoshop. Before squashing layers make whatever adjustments you need to make to the page that's off compared to the other one (I rarely see perfect 1:1 color/brightness matches in pages with a part of an image on each page, particularly for the old time mags). Using the technique in step 2, you should have the most you can get out of the scan and you may find that you'll be joining the two images at a spot not at the crease in order to preserve image purity (scanning creases can result in one of the pages having a grey overtone that increases as it gets closer to the center) as well as maximizing correct picture size. Yes, this still will result in part of the overall image missing but it's the best you can get.

I prefer not to do anything to the image once it's joined. You're just guessing at this point about what's missing and I'd rather have the viewer realize that there was a crease there then have them look at an image that looks off (due to the painting) but you can't quite figure out what exactly makes you think it looks off. Your mileage may vary.

DON'T

...Paint out text. The name of the model, photographer, edition date, blurbs, page numbers etc are useful to collectors. Also, few things are as distracting as a GIANT FUCKING BLACK RECTANGLE next to the babe showing her stuff. I know literature scares a lot of pornhounds, but they gotta learn to read sometime.

No offense, but this should really be filed under "It depends on one's point of view". I scan images. I don't scan full pages unless the image takes up the full page. I have no interest in reading some BS story that some idiot made up which features some pornstar who I know but isn't even using her pornstar name (hello Cee-Cee, SE, and everyrone else) in some BS scenario which over dramatizes the situation. The text for me just gets in the way.

98% of the time, with the material I tend to work with, I don't have to worry about text polluting my scans because they keep the text and images separate. It's when they don't and they put the text either over the image or worse cut the image somehow to make room for the text, that I'm presented with a problem.

I choose to rub out the text or text fragments. At one point I was using the black box technique but I have since evolved into figuring out a solid color that approximates the color tone for the area nearest the "edit". That tends to result in a less destracting image.

This is really a philosophical discussion - what's the purpose of a scan? Is it to document everything in the page, or, is it to document the image? As you can see there are very strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Neither are right since it's subjective based on one's opinion. But it's something one should be cognizant of when scanning - you're not going to please everyone so just make sure you're happy with what you're doing.

[DARPA]

the color balance might be completely different in the other parts but the scanner software or Photoshop or Gimp can not decide between them. So I guess treating the different parts differently can really help!

This is definitely true and the reason why I use selections in Photoshop when dealing with scans of 8mm boxes where I want to adjust the image(s) but not the graphics on the box. The hardest part is making the selection for the whole image by hand using the lasso tool. Sometimes it's easier to select the outside areas and invert the selection.

[DARPA]

Another thing I've learned, which may not be applicable to everyone, is that when scanning a page that has only one image on it, or when scanning a page with multiple images but you're only interested in one image, is to make sure the area you're scanning includes at least part of another image.

With my old scanner 10 years ago I found that if I used the marquee selection to restrict the scan to just the one image, the scan would sometimes come out worse than if I enlarged the marquee to include another image. Don't know why this was happening but it was definitely a factor in my scanning back then. I haven't seen it happen with the new scanner though so maybe the technololgy has improved on the low end of the scanner spectrum.

[DARPA]

I forgot about this until tonight when I ran into this very issue but there's one other point on the subject of "black boxes" that should be made. Not all "black boxes" are there because someone blotted out text. Sometimes it's because one pic overlapped another in one spot and when the end product of your scanning output is supposed to be single images, as is the case for me and a lot of other scanners who don't want to go the "scan the whole page and everything on it as one lone image" route, you don't want a piece of another image there because that looks stupid. You really have no choice but to blot it out.

[Dekoda]

I forgot about this until tonight when I ran into this very issue but there's one other point on the subject of "black boxes" that should be made. Not all "black boxes" are there because someone blotted out text. Sometimes it's because one pic overlapped another in one spot and when the end product of your scanning output is supposed to be single images, as is the case for me and a lot of other scanners who don't want to go the "scan the whole page and everything on it as one lone image" route, you don't want a piece of another image there because that looks stupid. You really have no choice but to blot it out.


Wow, I just came across this thread......I'm late to the discussion, but there are a few things I think I can add.

Yes, you do have a choice besides just blotting it out, you can do a rebuild. That's where you rebuild the part of the picture where a second picture overlapped. I did that all the time in my scans. I will admit that sometimes, trying to rebuild the picture is too difficult. When that happens, then you can black box the picture, although what I'd do was to make a box around the section that I wanted to blot out, select a color that matched the scene, fill it with that color, then place the model's name in the colored box. If it was done right, it looked like part of the original picture. ;)

[hartwig]

I know many words are said already about this topic but I thought about a new approach.
I thought if in mags some pages can be fixed very well using the standard auto-correction tools in e.g. PS it should be possible to find out what the program does and manually apply the same effects and thus getting the same results. But afterwards it sould be possible to reuse the filters I manually created for the pictures that do not work very well with auto color balance and stuff. And I might be able to re-use these filters for other mags aswell.

So here are my settings and the results:
(left pictures are totally untouched, the right ones have my filters applied)
http://thumbnails9.imagebam.com/8848/ccb47388471524.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/ccb47388471524) http://thumbnails7.imagebam.com/8848/e1628588471539.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/e1628588471539) http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/8848/de1b4388471548.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/de1b4388471548)


On *MY* monitor (a mid-end HP TFT) the pictures pretty much look like in the magazine, regarding contrast, colors and hue.
I guess I overdid a little with yellow so you might wanna fix this....

As you can see in the settings screen I created adjustment layers, then added the picture itself below those. The purpose of the empty layer is that I can save the empty picture only consisting of adjustments as a psd-file.

Tell me what you think :)
hartwig

P.S:
- In my opinion brightness and contrast are not that important, but fixing Exposure, Gamma and most of all Offset will do most of the job!
- I disasseble the mags to avoid blurring at the edges and always try to fix double-pages... and like the results.
- Pages are from CC 176 which I hope I can finish soon

[Dekoda]

I know many words are said already about this topic but I thought about a new approach.
I thought if in mags some pages can be fixed very well using the standard auto-correction tools in e.g. PS it should be possible to find out what the program does and manually apply the same effects and thus getting the same results. But afterwards it sould be possible to reuse the filters I manually created for the pictures that do not work very well with auto color balance and stuff. And I might be able to re-use these filters for other mags aswell.

So here are my settings and the results:
(left pictures are totally untouched, the right ones have my filters applied)
http://thumbnails9.imagebam.com/8848/ccb47388471524.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/ccb47388471524) http://thumbnails7.imagebam.com/8848/e1628588471539.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/e1628588471539) http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/8848/de1b4388471548.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/de1b4388471548)


On *MY* monitor (a mid-end HP TFT) the pictures pretty much look like in the magazine, regarding contrast, colors and hue.
I guess I overdid a little with yellow so you might wanna fix this....

As you can see in the settings screen I created adjustment layers, then added the picture itself below those. The purpose of the empty layer is that I can save the empty picture only consisting of adjustments as a psd-file.

Tell me what you think :)
hartwig

P.S:
- In my opinion brightness and contrast are not that important, but fixing Exposure, Gamma and most of all Offset will do most of the job!
- I disasseble the mags to avoid blurring at the edges and always try to fix double-pages... and like the results.
- Pages are from CC 176 which I hope I can finish soon


Hartwig, I took the liberty of making a few adjustments to the original scan (the left side picture) in each of the two pictures. I see no reason to use gamma, exposure or offset to make adjustments to each scan, just a bit of saturation, contrast, and of course, the ROC filter which I use extensively.

The thing is, everyone adjusts their scans differently, so what you might do, another person might not do. The finished scan is whatever looks good to the person who scanned the original picture. If you are happy with it, then that's all that matters. What looks good to one person, might look bad to another, so you have to make adjustments that look good to you.

The adjustments I made don't mean that my end result looks better, it just means it looks different.:)


http://ist1-4.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/h/D/F/u/hDFu/CC176_1_0.jpg (http://pimpandhost.com/image/show/id/4204064) http://ist1-4.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/h/D/F/x/hDFx/CC176_2_0.jpg (http://pimpandhost.com/image/show/id/4204067)

[tuffy]

I think the pics made by Hartwig look better. Dekoda's pics have a strong white clippning specially pic2.

Here are my versions, made in PS4 with auto level. They have a little red color cast.

http://img222.imagevenue.com/loc1098/th_10248_CC176_1_Tuffy_123_1098lo.jpg (http://img222.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=10248_CC176_1_Tuffy_123_1098lo.jpg) http://img248.imagevenue.com/loc363/th_10249_CC176_2_Tuffy_123_363lo.jpg (http://img248.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=10249_CC176_2_Tuffy_123_363lo.jpg)

Tuffy

[Darth Joules]

To paraphrase Dustin Hoffman. I just want to say one word to you. Just one word: curves!

Read and learn (and there are some other very useful bit sized tuts here too):

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm

Curves is the most powerful tool in PS at your disposal. It may take a lot of practise to learn how to use it properly and effectively, but it can do a hell of a lot more than color balance, brightness and contrast can together. I will use the latter tools after using curves for any very minor tweaks before final editing. Here's a WIP example (the raw scan is on the right).

http://img103.imagevenue.com/loc687/th_11298_NJscan_WIP2_123_687lo.jpg (http://img103.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=11298_NJscan_WIP2_123_687lo.jpg)

I use the levels tool most times to improve the brightness of a scan, though beware of using it if you scanner can only produce 8-bit TIFF files as it may cause color banding. It works best with 16-bit TIFFs. Tip: always save your scans as TIFFs it's the best file quality, especially for color images.

I'll only use hue and saturation when the image scanned has too much saturation of a particular color. Usually I find it's either red/magenta or yellow. I always work using the individual color channels, never the master channel: likewise when using the curves tool.

I agree with what Dekoda has already said, if it looks good to you then it should look good to everyone else, unless their TFT is crap or the veiwer is color blind. Though if you're a profilic scanner (or artist, or photog too) and you have a pretty decent midrange or high end TFT it's worth buying a screen calibrator. The more accurate your screen's output is the less likely it may look crap on a different screen.

And auto color is for amatuer holiday snaps (i.e. it's crap). :p

[hartwig]

I see no reason to use gamma, exposure or offset to make adjustments to each scan, just a bit of saturation, contrast, and of course, the ROC filter which I use extensively.


What is the ROC filter?

Tuffy said your pics have a little clipping (what did you mean, Tuffy?). The pics do not really look like in the magazine but I like your results. But what should you do? Keep it most original to the experience from the actual print or just make it the best you can?

Cheers,
hartwig

[Dekoda]

What is the ROC filter?

Tuffy said your pics have a little clipping (what did you mean, Tuffy?). The pics do not really look like in the magazine but I like your results. But what should you do? Keep it most original to the experience from the actual print or just make it the best you can?

Cheers,
hartwig


Oh, sorry Tuffy. I mentioned the ROC filter is another thread (Scanning and Editing Tips). The Kodak ROC (http://asf.com/products/plugins/rocpro/pluginROCPRO/) filter is a plugin for Photoshop. I have an old version of it, and I use it at it's default settings.

When you use it, a lot of times it will remove too much color and the picture will look bad. What I do is to use the filter, then use Photoshop's "Fade" function. I fade the effect to zero, then slowly move the slider up till I get the desired effect. I use the ROC filter first, before doing anything else.

As for whether to keep the picture looking like it did in the magazine, I mentioned this in another thread also. This is strictly my opinion, but I feel as if you should make the picture look as good as possible. The reason is because the picture in the magazine is not what the actual photograph looks like. Plus, a lot of lower end magazines don't have good quality control standards, so if you were to buy the first issue of a magazine, the pictures wouldn't look the same as they do in the 50,000 issue of the magazine.

Also keep in mind that most people don't calibrate their monitors. If you edit the picture on a calibrated monitor, and someone else views it on the exact same type of monitor, but it's not calibrated, it will look different. So I figure that I might as well try to make the picture look as good as I can get it since no matter what I do to it, it will look different to everyone.

[tuffy]

Tuffy said your pics have a little clipping (what did you mean, Tuffy?).

Cheers,
hartwig

As you can see in the histogram there are both black and white clipping in the picture, the white clipping is stronger. You can see the result on the right hand, light areas which are not in the original picture.

http://img105.imagevenue.com/loc516/th_39452_CC176_1_Dekoda_histogram_123_516lo.jpg (http://img105.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=39452_CC176_1_Dekoda_histogram_123_5 16lo.jpg)

When I made the pictures with auto level, I wanted to show that even auto level works without clipping in this case.

@Darth Joules
I have worked with Photoshop since Photoshop 3. I know Levels and Curves very well, I don't need read and learn!

Tuffy

[Dekoda]

To paraphrase Dustin Hoffman. I just want to say one word to you. Just one word: curves!

Read and learn (and there are some other very useful bit sized tuts here too):

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm

Curves is the most powerful tool in PS at your disposal. It may take a lot of practise to learn how to use it properly and effectively, but it can do a hell of a lot more than color balance, brightness and contrast can together. I will use the latter tools after using curves for any very minor tweaks before final editing. Here's a WIP example (the raw scan is on the right).

http://img103.imagevenue.com/loc687/th_11298_NJscan_WIP2_123_687lo.jpg (http://img103.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=11298_NJscan_WIP2_123_687lo.jpg)




Hi there DJ! I have tried and tried to use curves....I even have Curvemeister which is like curves on steroids, and I have never been able to understand how to use them. I have read tutorials, tips, I read the article on the link you posted, and curves still make no sense, so I never use them.

There are several things about curves that are the most confusing to me..... One thing....every time I read some tutorial or tip, they tell you about moving the anchor point one way or the other, what they don't tell you is where to place the anchor points and why. How can you adjust the curve, when you don't know where to start? Plus, how many anchors do you need....3...4...5? Ive seen tips that use any number of points, but it never says why you need that many.

Second, I've found that if you randomly pick an anchor point, the slightest movement of that point off the line will result in a lot of adjustment. You can't make a tiny incremental adjustment. It's like all or nothing.

It seems to me that using curves is more of a guessing game....do I place the anchor point here...maybe over there, how many anchor points should I use....how much and in what direction do I pull the anchor point and which anchor point should I pull. There is no rhyme or reason as to how to work with them.

From my own experience, I can do everything that curves can do by using levels, saturation, color balance, and contrast/brightness, and I can make incremental adjustments with those.

I know that those people who use curves, swear by them, but for me, I want the most precise control I can get, and curves doesn't do that.:)

I used the picture you posted and made my adjustments to it. I like to reduce the reddish tint to pictures more than others do (you can see it in her hair), but this is what I get without using curves.


http://ist1-4.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/h/F/8/U/hF8U/11298_NJscan_WIP2_123_687loa_0.jpg (http://pimpandhost.com/image/show/id/4209732)

[Jism Jim]

Could you please judge which scan looks best to you?

1:
http://thumbnails28.imagebam.com/10749/144d6e107484987.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/144d6e107484987)

or 3:
http://thumbnails27.imagebam.com/10749/f179d7107485009.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/f179d7107485009)

And is the difference big in your perception?

[tmee2000]

Could you please judge which scan looks best to you?

And is the difference big in your perception?

Very little difference.
I would say the print is a little clearer in #1, but that is only noticeable by cutting and pasting one next to the other. Just putting the two in Slideshow I couldn't tell.
I agree with you about pimp&host or whatever it's called too Dario. Drives me up the wall.

[hartwig]

Clearly #2 is a little darker in the shadows, but both are GREAT and I can't decide!

cheers,
hartwig

Could you please judge which scan looks best to you?

1:
http://thumbnails28.imagebam.com/10749/144d6e107484987.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/144d6e107484987)

or 3:
http://thumbnails27.imagebam.com/10749/f179d7107485009.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/f179d7107485009)

And is the difference big in your perception?

[hartwig]

I played around some more with my scanner and photoshop and came to a simple but to me very convincing solution: Curves!! (Yes, Darth Joules was absolutely right!)

Of each the first is what my scanner produces (using no color correction at all!), the second of each is what comes out with a curves master I created (more to that later):

http://thumbnails27.imagebam.com/10757/f52dc3107565769.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/f52dc3107565769) http://thumbnails29.imagebam.com/10757/c0e7ab107565785.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/c0e7ab107565785) http://thumbnails12.imagebam.com/10757/9b14c1107565802.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/9b14c1107565802) http://thumbnails35.imagebam.com/10757/6d5f4d107565818.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/6d5f4d107565818)

I was amazed by the results so I did some more testing using different magazines by differend publishers. You can download the comparisons right HERE (http://anonym.to/?http://rapidshare.com/files/432207597/Samples.rar).

I intenionally chose mags that both feature strong and weak colors and I trust you will find out which one's are of which kind.

The pro:
The colors look just like in the magazines

The con:
The colors look just like in the magazines -> Weak colors just stay weak!

Bottomline:
This seems to be an easy way of achieving great results :)

I use a Canon Scanner and Photoshop and HERE (http://anonym.to/?http://rapidshare.com/files/432207977/CurvesMaster.rar)'s my curves master. You can play a little with opacity if you want to tweak the results.

If you want to create your own master fitting your scanner - which I recommend - do the following:
1) Turn of ALL color correction (please do NOT turn off demoirée!)
2) Scan an image with the most extreme (but pure!) black, white, yellow, blue, red and green colors
3) Crop the scan result to the scanned image's dimensions
4) Create a new "adjustment layer"/"curves" and apply the auto function
5) Paste scanned images into the master as a new layer beneath the curves adjustment layer
6) Crop the image

Ok, this one was a major thing for me so I'd like to know from you! What are your results? Do you have any hints for me?

Cheers,
hartwig

[billybunter]

I've scanned a few mags on here. I have photoshop but don't know how to use it. I place the mag on the scanner and scan. Some complained my scans were too big, then when I reduced them some complained they were too small. So now just scan it.

[Jism Jim]

Clearly #2 is a little darker in the shadows, but both are GREAT and I can't decide!

Thanks guys, now I know that the fast and easy way is good enough. :)

[cooljcb]

cooljcb these scans look great! Can you give some advice about how you do them? What scanner/resolution do you use? And what do you use for noise reduction?
Thanx!

I always scan at 300dpi resolution with descreen filter. Then in Corel Paintshop Pro X2 apply the one step noise reduction filter and then i manually retouch with the clone brush or/and scratch remover. Joining pages is tricky sometimes as not all the page is scanned unless you take the magazine apart which i don't want to do !! :thumbsup:

Some more babes from Volume 8 Number 4, double pages joined.........

http://thumbnails15.imagebam.com/10824/763afd108239293.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/763afd108239293) http://thumbnails22.imagebam.com/10824/9ee271108239356.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/9ee271108239356) http://thumbnails22.imagebam.com/10824/3babbd108239376.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3babbd108239376) http://thumbnails27.imagebam.com/10824/eac756108239412.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/eac756108239412) http://thumbnails9.imagebam.com/10824/63e150108239443.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/63e150108239443)

[Dman44]

Thanks to everyone posting there input and valuable info on scanning. My problem with scanning is that no matter what setting i have the dpi on, I get "speckles" or "white clipping" and usually "graining" in the pics. My scans don't even come CLOSE to these wonderful works of art.

So, here's what I use: HP all in one 4180 and GIMP 2.6 or HP Photosmart Premier for enhancing. I scan using heavy books, I tried all kinds of methods and settings, but the pics still come out crappy, IMO. Is it my scanner? Do I need a stand alone scanner? If so, what would you recommend someone who's on a budget? Thanks.

My usual scan settings: 300 dpi, 100% size, sharpening OFF, that's it. I don't touch any other enhancement. I swear that my old stand alone Canon scanner from years ago did a better job.

[Jism Jim]

My problem with scanning is that no matter what setting i have the dpi on, I get "speckles" or "white clipping" and usually "graining" in the pics.

Without pics it's difficult to judge. First guess with scanning: do you use descreening? It should be a setting in your scanning driver software (not Gimp). this usually improves the quality of scans.

[Dman44]

Without pics it's difficult to judge. First guess with scanning: do you use descreening? It should be a setting in your scanning driver software (not Gimp). this usually improves the quality of scans.

I don't see any setting in the scanning software for descreening.

Here are a few recent examples:


http://thumbnails37.imagebam.com/12299/719f91122988172.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/719f91122988172) http://thumbnails28.imagebam.com/12798/eadab7127977403.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/eadab7127977403)http://thumbnails20.imagebam.com/12798/3b6f69127976340.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3b6f69127976340)

[ulitka]

I don't see any setting in the scanning software for descreening.


According to this document

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00730340&tmp_task=solveCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&site=null&key=null&product=1141647#N87

there is a setting "descreen".

[tuffy]

I don't see any setting in the scanning software for descreening.

Here are a few recent examples:


http://thumbnails37.imagebam.com/12299/719f91122988172.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/719f91122988172) http://thumbnails28.imagebam.com/12798/eadab7127977403.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/eadab7127977403)http://thumbnails20.imagebam.com/12798/3b6f69127976340.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3b6f69127976340)

Here are your scans with the Descreen function ON, simulated in Photoshop:

http://img278.imagevenue.com/loc362/th_29863_HM___BoBo_MD_p_1___scan001d_map_descr_123 _362lo.jpg (http://img278.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=29863_HM___BoBo_MD_p_1___scan001d_ma p_descr_123_362lo.jpg) http://img167.imagevenue.com/loc901/th_29865_HM___BoBo_MD_p_2___scan002a_map_descr_123 _901lo.jpg (http://img167.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=29865_HM___BoBo_MD_p_2___scan002a_ma p_descr_123_901lo.jpg) http://img137.imagevenue.com/loc367/th_29866_HM___BoBo_MD_p_3___scan003b_map_descr_123 _367lo.jpg (http://img137.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=29866_HM___BoBo_MD_p_3___scan003b_ma p_descr_123_367lo.jpg) http://img286.imagevenue.com/loc383/th_29870_HM_BG_V6_N8_2000_page_3_map_descr_123_383 lo.jpg (http://img286.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=29870_HM_BG_V6_N8_2000_page_3_map_de scr_123_383lo.jpg) http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc100/th_29870_TM_BG_v6_n8_p_2_descr_123_100lo.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=29870_TM_BG_v6_n8_p_2_descr_123_100l o.jpg)


Tuffy

[Dman44]

According to this document

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00730340&tmp_task=solveCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&site=null&key=null&product=1141647#N87

there is a setting "descreen".


Thanks. I never thought to look in my HP Solution Center for additional scan settings, or anything for that matter. I thought that it was just a "help" section. I bookmarked it. Thanks again! I will try a scan with the new modified settings to see if they come in clearer.


Just my opinion, but I think the mags that I recently scanned are not good quality pictures to begin with. Some I have are really bad, thin papered crap! I installed 4 GB of RAM [3.8 actually] just for scanning, so I hope once I get the hang of doing good consistent scans, I will be posting a lot more, at least that's the plan anyways.



UPDATE: I just tried scanning a pictorial with the new scan settings. WOW! What a huge difference! I had to adjust the size and dpi settings a few times, but I got exactly what I was looking for! It takes slightly longer, but I figured that.

Thanks very much everyone for the help! I got 600 mags that need scanning. I doubt I will get to all of them, but at least I can do the favorites for now.

[hechto]

It sounds like you are using too much resolution and definetly too much filtering/sharpening. Try 200dpi, no sharpening of any kind. Go easy on the descreen too. See if that helps. if it does go easy using unsharp mask or other sharpening. If you have sharpening off, all i can say is all in ones are often lame.

[Dman44]

It sounds like you are using too much resolution and definetly too much filtering/sharpening. Try 200dpi, no sharpening of any kind. Go easy on the descreen too. See if that helps. if it does go easy using unsharp mask or other sharpening. If you have sharpening off, all i can say is all in ones are often lame.


Thanks, but I figured it out. When I went into my HP Solution Center, I found an area where I can change my scan settings/preferences. One simple click on 'scan at maximum pixel depth' was all it was! A HUGE difference! It's like clear as day. I wish I knew about that setting a few years ago. Luckily, though, I only did like 4 pictorials since I bought this all in one, so not much loss of time and effort. Yeah, I agree 100% about no sharpening. BIG difference when you don't sharpen the scan at all. 'Cause even if it needs to be sharpened, you can always use Gimp, Photoshop, or whatever the scanner software has. Trial and error, trial and error.

[jwn12green]

A question: if a picture is a two page layout, how do you scan? Will the scan software let you merge both pages to create the one pic since you have to scan each page seperatly? Thanks!

[hartwig]

A question: if a picture is a two page layout, how do you scan? Will the scan software let you merge both pages to create the one pic since you have to scan each page seperatly? Thanks!

Yes, Photoshop (of course!) can do that for you. But the quality may be not as good as expected since it relies on the quality of the scanned pictures.
I normally fix that myself because I was not satisfied with the results.

I normally disassemble the mag, scan the double pages and then fix them using different layers and fix the gaps that occur from layout and printing of the mag.

If you have further questions let me know!

Cheers,
hartwig

[Scanguy77]

I place a piece of black or dark gray cardboard behind the page geing scanned.
Scanguy77

[jwn12green]

hartwig, what do you mean by different layers? Also, do most scanning software allow you to merge two seperate scans? Thanks from a newbie!!

[hartwig]

You create a big canvas and paste both pages as different layers.
Then select both and use "Edit /Auto Align Layers" and maybe also "Edit/Auto merge Layers".

But in order to be able to merge the layers you need to make each page overlap the other one. Means: Scan a double page and leave like 15% of the other page in the picture. Get what I mean?
If you don't do that PS will not be able to recognize how to merge the pages!

cheers,
hartwig

[ellias]

Also, depending on how straight each page is scanned, sometimes you have to rotate one of the pages to match the other. Another problem sometimes happens that the 2 pages being scanned were printed on what are called different "signatures" in the printing world and have slight color differences between the two. That's another problem that can be corrected in Photoshop but you still have to know what you're doing.

[hartwig]

Also, depending on how straight each page is scanned, sometimes you have to rotate one of the pages to match the other. Another problem sometimes happens that the 2 pages being scanned were printed on what are called different "signatures" in the printing world and have slight color differences between the two. That's another problem that can be corrected in Photoshop but you still have to know what you're doing.

This is why I don't rely on auto-color correction of the scanner or PS. I only use that if the before-mentioned "signatures" are very similar.
What I have learned only weeks ago is that color masters give the best results. I described that here (http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showpost.php?p=1353907&postcount=66).

Cheers,
hartwig

[ellias]

Hartwig... Unless I read you wrong, you seem to imply that I'm saying everything can be corrected automatically in PS by merely clicking on the Auto color button to fix the color differences between one scanned page to the other. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is differences between the two can be resolved manually with a number of tools used in combination that are offered in PS.

[stardust2003]

I get my scanner wired up
then hit...XN View .. ( a free download on web )

I then hit
file ( top left )
then... select twain source
I hit ......... scan (http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showthread.php?p=1618395#) manager.

In future now you can just hit the scanner icon on the main
window and scan manager will come up

Hit the preview box and a nice big preview of your scan
will come up
Hit ... Advanced Settings...
a little window comes up.... ( leave it there for the time your scanning)

I set light......... -12
contrast................+40

the colour balance I leave on auto.

Go back to the main window and set............
colour document... better quality
resolution.... 300 dpi

a left click on the mouse will let you select any part of the preview picture to scan

If the pic is very dark, you can increase (http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showthread.php?p=1618395#) the light a touch.
but Ive found, these general settings usually give a good result.

The pics come in quite big say 800k or 1 meg
but the windows resizer will get them down to 100 or 150
without losing very much quality.

The scans appear on the main XN View page, you then go
to file
then save as and put your scan into documents
then delete the scan from the xn page.

[DARPA]

I played around some more with my scanner and photoshop and came to a simple but to me very convincing solution: Curves!! (Yes, Darth Joules was absolutely right!)

Of each the first is what my scanner produces (using no color correction at all!), the second of each is what comes out with a curves master I created (more to that later):

Ok, I've been away from this thread for a couple years (I thought I was done scanning two years ago but one of my "Holy Grails" may have just made itself available for me so I guess I'm not done after all :rolleyes:)

I'm one of those who just can't deal with curves. I get frustrated easily with the UI. But I'll take another look after reading this thread.

[Darth Joules]

Perhaps a little off topic as it's a technical poser, but here's something interesting. This is a problem I've just found with one of my scanners, my trusty ol' Canon CanoScan LiDE 50 which is almost exclusively used to scan smut.

http://img287.imagevenue.com/loc22/th_089771605_Platen_burn2_123_22lo.jpg (http://img287.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=089771605_Platen_burn2_123_22lo.jpg)

Look in the upper middle area above the title between the letters "T" to the last "P" in "Photography" of the top image. Notice the funny greyish area? Same source scanned turned upside down on the platen, lower image, the mark doesn't appear. Some people's monitors might hot have the fidelitiy to see the mark.

This large greyish "smudge" always appears at the lead edge where the scanning assemble starts with every scan if the source material is dark enough for it to show up and always in the same place. I tried cleaning the platen glass with Isopropanol or other cleaning agents but they didn't remove it, it appears to be on the inside of the glass. :(

Now this is a LED lit scanner, and I have hammered it to death over the years, but to me it looks as if this is some sort of (heat?) burn mark and its shape roughly matches the resting postion of the scanning assembly's main body. LED scanners shut down after a scan, but has so much use really burnt an indelible mark on the inside of the glass platen? What do other seasoned scanners think?

It's probably worth popping a sheet of black card the size of the platen into your scanners to spot any platen defects/marks once every while. :thumbsup: Especially if your scanner cannot be taken apart like my LiDE 50. :(

[ellias]

Darth... Considering the Japanese Bachelor magazines have the finest printing in the smut industry, I think your scanner is incapable of capturing the quality the naked eye can see on the printed page.

[Darth Joules]

Darth... Considering the Japanese Bachelor magazines have the finest printing in the smut industry, I think your scanner is incapable of capturing the quality the naked eye can see on the printed page.

The paper stock quality is very good indeed, but they're by no means perfect. Sometimes the colour correction is totally wrong, like the Bachelor DX mag I have....way too much red caste. As for perfection when scanning? Yeah I could use my Epsom A3 scanner to scan all my smut instead of my professional work and hammer the hell out of the xenon bulb's life span, but that's why I have (had) a reasonable good run-of-the-mill LED lit (smut) scanner. :p

[karenwhitefan]

Hello Darth

RE technical poser. It's not a problem with your scanner. It looks like a very slight kink in the top of the page which is deflecting the beam of the scanner slightly.

Try placing some card on the page and when you scan it place your hand over the area where the problem occurs. You only need to apply arm weight to the scanner lid.

I hope this helps.

[Darth Joules]

RE technical poser. It's not a problem with your scanner. It looks like a very slight kink in the top of the page which is deflecting the beam of the scanner slightly.

Nope! :(

It is a technical fault with the scanner and unfortunately one that it appears to have had from the day I've bought it. :mad: The mark appears in any scan where the source material is dark enough for it to show. I was rooting through some old scans, lo and behold, there was the mark in some scans I did after I bought it. :mad:

So it's either a mark that got there when it was assembled in the factory, or it might a slight reflection of the scanning assembly just as the scan begins (since it is uncannily mirrors the same shape as the assembly).

What's worse than having to buy a new scanner to replace it is having bin nearly 80% of my scans and know that I'll have to rescan almost everything!! :(