Lynn: I ran into a similar situation with what looked like flyspecks all over 3
images in a roll I had developed. They were shot from a beach looking across a
bay in the the early evening with the sun at 2 o'clock. The camera was angled
just enough to prevent lens flare. My solution was to try Photo Suite III's
Blemish Remove tool. (I had just purchased at no cost after the rebate and was
trying it out.) It worked very well and I then sharpened the area in Photoshop
to reduce the softness I encountered using the tool. It does work quite nicely
and I have used it with good results on the other 2 images in the roll affected
by the same "fly spots."
Gordon
Lynn Allen wrote:
> Here's one I haven't seen very-well-addressed on the List before:
> grain-aliasing on Ektachrome. Does it/can it exist? Oh, yes. I just ran
> headlong into a real beauty!
>
> The photo was shot at Disneyland, with the Matterhorn (a roller-coaster
> ride, at D'land) in the background. Same scenario as I've described
> before--bright sunlight, and the subject in modified shadow (not deep, this
> time), and back-lit at about 10-o'clock (sun, approximately 20 degrees left
> behind the subject and 70 degrees above the horizon). My spotmeter decided
> to expose for the Matterhorn--which is white--instead of the subject, my
> daughter, who is "white" in the Caucasion sense ot the word, but not at all
> so in reflective color. Result: another poorly-exposed slide that looks fine
> on a projection screen, not-so-great on a 2700ppi scan.
>
> What got my attention was the sky area, a clear-day blue with typical
> atmospheric gradadation down toward to the horizion. What appeared at first
> to be "dust" didn't quite have the dark, well-defined *signature* I'd have
> expected from dust. And throughout the sky area was a lighter-blue
> "footprint" that I can only describe as the look of a "woven"
> paper-stock--long, regular slashes of a lighter color with a darker
> drop-shadow, a "crinkled" look! I've never encountered this exact effect in
> *any* of the nearly 2000 slides I've done before today, nor had I been
> drinking--but I'm tempted to start! ;-)
>
> This is probably another one of those darned "Un-reproducable Noise"
> problems that I run into every 20 or 30 pictures. Attempting to JPEG it to
> something "Inter-netable" softens it well beyond what I see on my monitor,
> or something that would be recognizeable as what is actually going on. It
> could have been produced during development processing, and probably was. My
> vote is with Tony's idea about what I'd call "sympathetic vibrations"
> produced by a 2700ppi scan resolution.
>
> My "solution" was to use a fairly large soft Cloning brush (30 to 50-pixel)
> at a 50% transparency in a short circular mouse-pattern, changing the
> pick-up area every so often to eliminate obvious "repeats." It ain't very
> hi-tech, but it seems to work. At least I've got a clean sky, now.
>
> Best regards--LRA
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> Reserve your name now at
