|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
October 20th, 2008, 05:41 PM | #41 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
Thanks: 8
Thanked 205 Times in 14 Posts
|
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. |
The Following User Says Thank You to karenwhitefan For This Useful Post: |
October 20th, 2008, 05:50 PM | #42 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
Thanks: 8
Thanked 205 Times in 14 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to karenwhitefan For This Useful Post: |
October 22nd, 2008, 04:05 AM | #44 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 382
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 34,100 Times in 367 Posts
|
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! |
March 18th, 2009, 05:32 PM | #45 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Thanks: 23
Thanked 980 Times in 11 Posts
|
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. |
July 21st, 2009, 12:30 PM | #46 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: England Town
Posts: 1,107
Thanks: 1,592
Thanked 19,880 Times in 984 Posts
|
Quote:
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/sho...1&postcount=52. Last edited by The Old Hacker; July 22nd, 2009 at 03:57 PM.. Reason: Clarified text. |
|
July 21st, 2009, 04:14 PM | #47 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 382
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 34,100 Times in 367 Posts
|
Quote:
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? |
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hartwig For This Useful Post: |
July 22nd, 2009, 03:51 PM | #48 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: England Town
Posts: 1,107
Thanks: 1,592
Thanked 19,880 Times in 984 Posts
|
Quote:
<grin> |
|
December 14th, 2009, 08:27 PM | #49 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trapped inside a scanner
Posts: 3,502
Thanks: 4,331
Thanked 61,989 Times in 3,412 Posts
|
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...
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by DARPA; December 14th, 2009 at 10:41 PM.. |
||||
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DARPA For This Useful Post: |
December 14th, 2009, 10:10 PM | #50 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trapped inside a scanner
Posts: 3,502
Thanks: 4,331
Thanked 61,989 Times in 3,412 Posts
|
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.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|