Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum
Home
Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Information & Help Forum > Help Section > Scanning Feedback
Best Porn Sites Live Sex Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 20th, 2008, 06:41 PM   #41
karenwhitefan
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
Thanks: 8
Thanked 206 Times in 14 Posts
karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+
Default

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to karenwhitefan For This Useful Post:
Old October 20th, 2008, 06:50 PM   #42
karenwhitefan
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
Thanks: 8
Thanked 206 Times in 14 Posts
karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+karenwhitefan 1000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gordian_knot View Post
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.
karenwhitefan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to karenwhitefan For This Useful Post:
Old October 21st, 2008, 10:25 PM   #43
gordian_knot
Vintage Member
 
gordian_knot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Gordium
Posts: 1,225
Thanks: 6,524
Thanked 13,820 Times in 1,209 Posts
gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+gordian_knot 50000+
Default

Yes I've grabbed it, but not yet installed it. I will though, soon.
gordian_knot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gordian_knot For This Useful Post:
Old October 22nd, 2008, 05:05 AM   #44
hartwig
Veteran Member
 
hartwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 382
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 34,066 Times in 367 Posts
hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+
Default

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!
hartwig is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hartwig For This Useful Post:
Old March 18th, 2009, 06:32 PM   #45
cj1
Member
 
cj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Thanks: 23
Thanked 979 Times in 11 Posts
cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+cj1 5000+
Default

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.
cj1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to cj1 For This Useful Post:
Old July 21st, 2009, 01:30 PM   #46
The Old Hacker
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: England Town
Posts: 1,107
Thanks: 1,592
Thanked 19,860 Times in 984 Posts
The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushashi7 View Post
[COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="3"][B]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.
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/sho...1&postcount=52.

Last edited by The Old Hacker; July 22nd, 2009 at 04:57 PM.. Reason: Clarified text.
The Old Hacker is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Old Hacker For This Useful Post:
Old July 21st, 2009, 05:14 PM   #47
hartwig
Veteran Member
 
hartwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 382
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 34,066 Times in 367 Posts
hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+hartwig 175000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Hacker View Post
....
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.
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?

hartwig is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hartwig For This Useful Post:
Old July 22nd, 2009, 04:51 PM   #48
The Old Hacker
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: England Town
Posts: 1,107
Thanks: 1,592
Thanked 19,860 Times in 984 Posts
The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+The Old Hacker 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hartwig View Post
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?

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>
The Old Hacker is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to The Old Hacker For This Useful Post:
Old December 14th, 2009, 09:27 PM   #49
DARPA
Veteran Member
 
DARPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trapped inside a scanner
Posts: 3,431
Thanks: 4,207
Thanked 60,854 Times in 3,342 Posts
DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+
Default

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:
Originally Posted by Sadielover View Post
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.

Quote:
...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.


Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by DARPA; December 14th, 2009 at 11:41 PM..
DARPA is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DARPA For This Useful Post:
Old December 14th, 2009, 11:10 PM   #50
DARPA
Veteran Member
 
DARPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trapped inside a scanner
Posts: 3,431
Thanks: 4,207
Thanked 60,854 Times in 3,342 Posts
DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+DARPA 250000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hartwig View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DARPA For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:27 AM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.