Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes
Thread started 17 May 2004 (Monday) 20:49
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Two Dudes, 1968

 
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
12,842 posts
Joined Nov 2003
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
May 17, 2004 20:49 |  #1

This is my little brother and I in May of 1968. I'm the one on the right if you're wondering about the "little brother" part. I was 3-1/2 and my brother 2-1/2 at the time. This must have been my sister's First Communion or something since we were all duded up. Duded up and looking good, but I get the vague feeling that I didn't want to be there.


This is my first pass at this restoring this, and so far I barely put any effort into it beyond scanning it in, and that took an hour. Why is scanner software so horrible? Nothing makes sense. Man I wish that Photoshop put out a package that would work with all scanners...

I realize that I've got some work to do, but this is worlds better than the original. (Speaking of the original, this picture is 3-1/2" square - what camera could have produced this? I thought that my father owned a 35mm back then, so I'm kinda curious.) But if anyone has any suggestions for getting this any better, I'd appreciate it.

OK, here's the pic:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Scott_and_Bruce_1968.jpg

You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
LazyPhotographer
Goldmember
LazyPhotographer's Avatar
3,163 posts
Joined Nov 2003
Las Vegas, NV
May 17, 2004 21:48 |  #2

Quite dapper... :lol:


LazyPhotographer: One who uses a telephoto lens to shoot pictures out the car window or from a balcony. :arrow: No Bird Posts Left Behind, dammit! :twisted:

LOG IN TO REPLY
meow
Senior Member
330 posts
Joined Jul 2003
May 17, 2004 21:59 |  #3

I'd say someone's got an attitude! :D

Seems fun. Makes me want to buy a scanner (no, not spend more money, not spend more money, not spend more money...).




LOG IN TO REPLY
marie
Cream of the Crop
marie's Avatar
21,057 posts
Joined Jul 2002
May 19, 2004 06:59 |  #4

"Speaking of the original, this picture is 3-1/2" square - what camera could have produced this? I thought that my father owned a 35mm back then, so I'm kinda curious.) But if anyone has any suggestions for getting this any better, I'd appreciate it. "
unquote




that's a wonderful picture to have Scottes
it's a lovely shot.
thank goodness someone took pictures of us like this when young :lol:
it's a bit of a treasure

you ask about what camera it could have been
maybe a kodak instamatic as the size of their pictures were what you say this was (is) .
I took a lot of shots of the children with that particular camera when they were babies. small square format prints. not great as regards quality but mostly it gave us what we wanted at the time

(ignorance was bliss 8) :lol:

as regards what you say about the scanner
my old hp scanner was much easier to operate then the new canon lide.
I got one a few months ago which does slides and negatives
(as I had slide pictures of steam engines to show the two Toms it would help :lol: )
but as yet have to try and work it out
(time time :lol: :lol: )
and when I scanned in a large A4 size ( copied onto foolscap paper) bl/wh picture it came out with a lot of lines through it
?! but yet it done it 'fairly ok' another way (but not right)

I have to figure out what I am doing wrong there and it has to be my problem as I am sure the scanner is 100% ok just I have to get more time to work it all out better for things which get a bit distorted.

when I tried to copy a photograph from a page in a book it came out distorted in some and not in others (but not perfect)
so I ended up taking a photograph of a photograph in the book :(

the other scanner I never had any trouble with doing bl/wh copies like it ever. so the simpler the gadget the simpler the operations for it are I guess

this is an excellent picture. I like it a lot.
it's the casual way you both are outside the barbers ( just after having your hairs cut ? )
it would not have been a happy day for you both I imagine
visiting the barber is not a young mans delight at the best of times :roll:

I guess your dad has passed away or you would have been able to find out what camera it was and any other information about the photo but it's priceless. wonderful that he took it at all


regards, Marie
Canon G12, dslr 40D, GIX
Canon lens24-105
Lmm10-22mm,17-40,17-85, 70-300,60mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
12,842 posts
Joined Nov 2003
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
May 19, 2004 07:13 |  #5

Thanks Marie.

And a Kodak Instamatic is certainly possible.


As to your scanner, it sounds like the belt is slipping. So the head is moving across unevenly, causing distortion and lines.

You *might* be able to take it apart and clean it or try to. Then again, you might break it totally at that point - but if it's distorting the images it sounds like it's fair game for anything...


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
marie
Cream of the Crop
marie's Avatar
21,057 posts
Joined Jul 2002
May 19, 2004 08:07 |  #6

"As to your scanner, it sounds like the belt is slipping. So the head is moving across unevenly, causing distortion and lines.

You *might* be able to take it apart and clean it or try to. Then again, you might break it totally at that point - but if it's distorting the images it sounds like it's fair game for anything... "
_______________
^ unquote




thank you very much for saying Scottes
that's very good of you
sorry it took me a while to get back as I wanted to show you the way it scanned. so had to put the pictures on the host site

the scanner is brand new
so it does'nt need cleaning.
it must be how I have done the settings ?
(by the way I was only telling you about mine to sympathize with your problem which you mentioned with scanner) :lol:

cont.
I have it a few months but never got to using it properly ( and as I was using the old one)
this first shot is only a copy of a picture on an A4 sheet of foolscap and the 2nd picture is a proper (but old) photograph scanned in and it turned out ok

it may have something to do with the paper quality although the foolscap copy did copy ok when I done something else on the scanner
(but it certainly was not good enough )
I think I have the settings wrong.

but it may well be the paper,
the picture being only a copy of a picture on a sheet of foolscap

the quality is probably already near zero to enable it to scan
although it looks fairly ok on the foolscap sheet in my hand before scanning.
no worries if it's best left (re saying what could be wrong) as it's hard trying to analyse something like this...like this :lol:


IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'


?!

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

regards, Marie
Canon G12, dslr 40D, GIX
Canon lens24-105
Lmm10-22mm,17-40,17-85, 70-300,60mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
12,842 posts
Joined Nov 2003
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
May 19, 2004 08:56 |  #7

Is this a flatbed? Or does the paper/picture get sucked into the system like a fax machine?

If a flatbed then I have *no* idea since the second pic looks great.

But if the item-to-be-scanned feeds through then it could be the feed rollers slipping on the foolscap....


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
marie
Cream of the Crop
marie's Avatar
21,057 posts
Joined Jul 2002
May 19, 2004 09:07 |  #8



many thanks Scotte
(:oops: I never intended to start this 'trouble' )
:)

it is a flatbed scanner.

I can only think it must be the paper which the picture is copied onto
and I have the settings for that type of paper ( to copy from ) wrong

but I won't be doing any more like that
(it just happened it was how I had the picture)

the quality is probably not good enough, first of all for a photo
and then for a photo to be copied from that type of paper on this (more sensitive ? )scanner
I really appreciated what you say. I was'nt expecting it.

very many thanks
:)


regards, Marie
Canon G12, dslr 40D, GIX
Canon lens24-105
Lmm10-22mm,17-40,17-85, 70-300,60mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
dn7elson
Senior Member
819 posts
Joined Apr 2002
May 19, 2004 09:22 |  #9

Scottes wrote:
Man I wish that Photoshop put out a package that would work with all scanners...

Did you scan into Photoshop via the File, Import and either the WIA or TWAIN interface? WIA will use the Windows XP interface that is somewhat more simple or if your scanner has a TWAIN driver (you may need to download one if it's not already installed) then you will generally scan via the software that came with your scanner into Photoshop.




LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
PacAce's Avatar
26,853 posts
Joined Feb 2003
ABE, PA USA
May 19, 2004 11:48 |  #10

Hey, Scott, I've got a similar type of picture with my brother, you know, with the bow tie and the plaid or checkered jacket? Wonder what our parents were thinking when they put us in those outfits. :shock:

Maybe it was the "in" thing then, huh?

:D :D :D


...Leo

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
12,842 posts
Joined Nov 2003
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
May 19, 2004 13:34 |  #11

dn7elson wrote:
Scottes wrote:
Man I wish that Photoshop put out a package that would work with all scanners...

Did you scan into Photoshop via the File, Import and either the WIA or TWAIN interface? WIA will use the Windows XP interface that is somewhat more simple or if your scanner has a TWAIN driver (you may need to download one if it's not already installed) then you will generally scan via the software that came with your scanner into Photoshop.

I'm using the TWAIN driver. The TWAIN driver software sucks.

I always got a kick out of TWAIN, which is supposed to be an independent way to run the scanner, yet you have to use the software that came with the scanner, which means that it's no very independent, is it?

Now if TWAIN was truly independent of software, then PS could send the "start scan" command to the scanner. But No - you have to use the scanner software which does the actually scanning and simply dumps the resulting image into PS. So the only thing I've gained is the fact that I don't have to save the image to disk and then open with PS. Big ^$&%&*% deal.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
dn7elson
Senior Member
819 posts
Joined Apr 2002
May 19, 2004 14:54 |  #12

Scottes wrote:
Now if TWAIN was truly independent of software, then PS could send the "start scan" command to the scanner. But No - you have to use the scanner software which does the actually scanning and simply dumps the resulting image into PS. So the only thing I've gained is the fact that I don't have to save the image to disk and then open with PS. Big ^$&%&*% deal.

I have always heard that TWAIN was the acronym for Technology Without An Interesting Name...

I have seen it where the setup for the TWAIN driver gives you the option to Preview the image or not. If you say "Not" then you never see the software appear and it would appear that you scanned directly into the application (such as PS).

I have an HP scanner (uses Deskscan II software) and like the Preview so I usually use it vs. the WIA that provides more limited options, but sometimes a better scan...go figure.

Why the lengthy time for scanning the initial image? My old HP3c has a calibration image and allows for me to calibrate the scanner throught the software and out the printer and back into the scanner again. This sure helps with getting the scans to match the output. It is not to dissimilar to creating the printer profile calibrations now available for photo printers.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
12,842 posts
Joined Nov 2003
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
May 19, 2004 16:38 |  #13

dn7elson wrote:
I have seen it where the setup for the TWAIN driver gives you the option to Preview the image or not.

It has a review, and all sorts of color & contrast controls and such. It's just that they stink. I did everything I could to stretch the scan to fill the histogram and get max contrast. Nope. The histogram was only half as wide as it could have been.

No matter what I did, the image came into PS as an 8-bit image. It's supposed to be a 36-bit scanner.

I have an HP scanner (uses Deskscan II software) and like the Preview so I usually use it vs. the WIA that provides more limited options, but sometimes a better scan...go figure.

WIA?

Why the lengthy time for scanning the initial image?

I scanned it many times trying to get the image right. I never made it, really.

My old HP3c has a calibration image and allows for me to calibrate the scanner throught the software and out the printer and back into the scanner again.

I'd kill for that.

Of course, it's not really worth it for me to get a new scanner. It was always a convenience item and it does that. Mind you, it was a decent one (Epson Perfection 1200) when I got it. It gets used mainly by my wife for scanning in small stuff and patterns and such. I haven't really tried to use it to scan in a photograph - at least one where quality really made a difference.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
dn7elson
Senior Member
819 posts
Joined Apr 2002
May 19, 2004 19:22 |  #14

Scottes wrote:
It has a review, and all sorts of color & contrast controls and such. It's just that they stink.

In that case you will be better off using PS to manipulate the image and just take into it what you can from the scanner. Don't do any scanner color correction or sharpening as PS will do a better job. You might want to put a piece of 18% Gray next to the image and scan it with the picture to give you a starting point for WB. If you had a Black, Medium Gray & Black strip it would be even better since you could also set white and black points. This should help to max the histogram and give you a neutral point for color correction.

No matter what I did, the image came into PS as an 8-bit image. It's supposed to be a 36-bit scanner.

The 36 bit is only related to color depth and maximum possible number of colors

WIA?

Windows Image Acquisition. The Windows XP (& NT too, I think) interface.

I'd kill for that.

Likely why the scanner cost $1,000 new. It's horribly obsolite now at only 600dpi optical, but will not die :lol:

Of course, it's not really worth it for me to get a new scanner.

Try just getting the scanner to handle the lightness and contrast and leave the color calibration to PS.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
12,842 posts
Joined Nov 2003
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
May 19, 2004 19:28 |  #15

Good point on the white balance and color strip.

I figured that PS would do better than the scnner for color correction, so I gave that up quickly.

Now if this scanner is 36-bit what good does that do for me if it only gives PS an 8-bit image? ? ?

And I *tried* so hard to get expanded contrast from the scanner, but no go. The histogram covered only half the available range. No matter what I did.

Thanks for the tips though. The color strip may help a bit. I just wish that I could get more range.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,318 views & 0 likes for this thread
Two Dudes, 1968
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00269 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is vinodkottassery
994 guests, 436 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016