Pat Virgil

[yefy]

Thankfully burpman ID'ed this voluptious latina gal for me, so this thread was a pleasent surprise Even more so, since she seems to have done some H/C

I've scanned her set as "Laura" in Extra No. 2 1988 (this mag doesn't have many shots though). The pages was scanned in 300DPI, then optimized in Photoshop 10 CS3 (noise/dust removal+gaussian blur+unsharp mask+surface blur+ brightness/contrast adjusted). The full pages have been resized to 150DPI, but the single images is the original 300DPI scans. You can PM me for personal requests if you want further adjustments (I can't rescan the pages for the moment, but I can modify the original 300 DPI scans). When I have the chance I'll rescan at 600DPI, and then resize to get rid of the "smudging effect" (I'm not a big fan of some scanners de-rasterizers).

Hope ya'll enjoy'em

As "Laura" in Extra No. 2 1988

[Darth Joules]

Nice find yefy! Now I know these three pictures from my collection belong to the same set.

I would have more of my own if I hadn't absent mindly thrown out the Raider mag (I think) that had a few real crackers of the same set in it.

Originally Posted by yefy

The pages was scanned in 300DPI, then optimized in Photoshop 10 CS3 (noise/dust removal+gaussian blur+unsharp mask+surface blur+ brightness/contrast adjusted). The full pages have been resized to 150DPI, but the single images is the original 300DPI scans. You can PM me for personal requests if you want further adjustments (I can't rescan the pages for the moment, but I can modify the original 300 DPI scans). When I have the chance I'll rescan at 600DPI, and then resize to get rid of the "smudging effect" (I'm not a big fan of some scanners de-rasterizers).

I'd say you're scanning at a too higher DPI setting. What scanner are you using?

The higher you go the worse the Moiré "fuzzy banding" effect from magazine scans will be, especially if the printing and page qualitty of the source material is of a low grade (i.e. the printed colour dots are farther apart). So 600DPI is bad. I use 300DPI max, but only when scanning from either prints or very high grade magazines like certain Japanese publications (Bachelor, etc). I normally use 120-180DPI for newspaper and poor quality pages in cheap/tabloid mags. 240DPI for average/better grade stuff like Mayfair. I never increase DPI for small images, a common mistake of novice scanners.

Use your scanner's Descreen filter to cut out the Moiré effect, then you will not have to use various Photoshop filters to undo the Moiré effect afterwards which may leave the image looking worse than the original source. I can see a lot of banding and artifacting in your images becuase of this. Getting the hang of consistant good scanning isn't that hard, though a lot does depend on the scanner. He, he, I remember my first scans of my Natalie Banus collection with my old (and long gone) Agfa Scan II and I too used to scan at very high DPI settings. Awful scans now that I look back at them, ahem, for example...

Back on topic. Here's a full page scan of my own using a Canon Lide 60 at 200DPI with just the Descreen filter enabled. Saved image as a BMP file was about 2000+ pixels high. Canvas re-oriented (because it went in wonky :P ), cropped, resized, Sharper Edges, a smidgen of colour adjustment in Photoshop CS3 and then saved as a JPEG. And that's it.

Nice, no?

[Darth Joules]

Originally Posted by yefy

I'd guess the quality of descreening depends on the quality of the scanner.

Yes, very much so. Epsom and Canon scanners are the best IMHO for printed material. My Canon LiDe 50 (not 60, oops) produces good results as you've seen, but my Epsom Perfection 3200 Photo is even better along with its higher resolution. However I rarely use the latter for mag scanning as it is 2-3 times slower than the LiDe and I have to worry about bulb life. The LiDe uses LEDs rather than a fluorescent bulb.

Not to be a party-pooper but HP scanners are notoriously bad at Descreening images from printed material, the HP Photosmart all-in-one jobbies being the worst. I'd seriously recommend getting a good dedicated flatbed scanner if your going to be scanning buckets of smut.

Here's an example of my latest scanning process as mentioned where I scan at 600DPI (no descreening), then resize/resample to half the size (this preview has been resized even more):



The scan above is just for preview purposes (it has only been scanned, cropped and resized)

Much better result.

And now for some more Pat (credit to original scanner)....

[Darth Joules]

Three more new Patties found from nightwing9191's link.

[Darth Joules]

[Darth Joules]

now for something more on topic...

[Darth Joules]

Looking forward to more scans engine ear. In meantime, Pat serves up a double helping...

[Darth Joules]

She's from the USA and of Mexican decent. She also went by the name Lori Hite. As for her H/C shoots, there could be as many as three. One shoot I've scanned from a mag I have, there are a couple of images here from another shoot, and engine ear's scans of a softcore shoot may hint at there possibly being a third. Plus it looks like she did a couple of girl-girl shoots too.

I'm still trying to hunt down a copy of this magazine; For Guys Who Love Big Tits #4. Same shoot as I've scanned from Horny Tit Lover. Same publisher, but could contain different images.

And whilst I'm posting on the subject of magazines featuring Pat Virgil, I've found out she has a layout in an issue of MAXX (Bustin' Out) as "Bebe". Anyone know which issue?

And it's worth keeping an eye out for these magazines Pat fans! As found on the Mature section of eB*y back when it was still a treasure trove for vintage smut, but I sadly I lost whilst bidding on them. So keep an eye out for them during your "travels". Of course no one can be sure if she appears within any of these.

[burpman]

[Darth Joules]

Just a crying shame what the stylist did to Pat's hair...