How much time do you spend cleaning dust and scratches in photoshop?

[chikne]

Just curious how long it takes people doing this in general. I find that I spend way too long (at least 2 1/2 hours for each shot, a lot more in general).
This is of course because I use silver based films and like to develop myself.

Write down if you got any tips to make the process less tedious!!

[Pherdinand]

considerable.
But i tend to overshoot.

[Pherdinand]

2 1/2 hours is way too much indeed. Maybe you could keep the film or scanner cleaner...

[chikne]

I spray and wipe the film before every scan. The scanner is less than a month old but agreed that I should try to keep it cleaner....

[aad]

Something seems out of kilter. I scan as soon as I can with my self-developed film and almost as quick with C41.

Maybe do a "contact sheet" or a bunch of quick low resolution scans, pick out the keeper/potential masterpieces, and reclean those just before doing a full scan,

[Pherdinand]

How do you do the cleanup?
For some time i used the clone stamp, me stupid. But finally i realized the healing brush is just so much easier and faster...

[chikne]

How do you do the cleanup?
For some time i used the clone stamp, me stupid. But finally i realized the healing brush is just so much easier and faster...

I just gave that a shot. Indeed it seems to be a lot faster. I'm gonna see how it takes to clean a frame with this....
See you in 2 hours :bang:

[bmoc]

try this to speed things up:

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

scroll down to Oct. 6 post.

-Barry

[chikne]

try this to speed things up:

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

scroll down to Oct. 6 post.

-Barry

Wow that just works!!!

Thanks for the input guys, I've also given a quick wipe on the glass of the scanner and indeed there was already some dust on it!!!!

[Tim Gray]

The last couple frames I've scanned... Almost no time at all. The key is clean negatives, sleeve them until scan time, then inspect for large dust and hit with very small brush for anything visible.

The day I started to mix up photoflo fresh for each dev session was the day my negs got a lot cleaner.

[chikne]

The last couple frames I've scanned... Almost no time at all. The key is clean negatives, sleeve them until scan time, then inspect for large dust and hit with very small brush for anything visible.

The day I started to mix up photoflo fresh for each dev session was the day my negs got a lot cleaner.

I use distilled water and wash up liquid. I've used the same mix for a bit now and can see the difference from the first time I made the mix.
Any ideas why that is?

[Ronald M]

I prefer clean glass storage bottles, fresh new chemicals, an air cleaner, a water filter, and giving the negs a dust off and magnifing glass treatment before scanning. Scanner and carrier are kept sealed between use.

But if you like to clone, have at it.

[chikne]

I prefer clean glass storage bottles, fresh new chemicals, an air cleaner, a water filter, and giving the negs a dust off and magnifing glass treatment before scanning. Scanner and carrier are kept sealed between use.

But if you like to clone, have at it.

Do you really think that your comment is of any help to anyone?

[Pherdinand]

Do you think yours is??
LOL

[chikne]

Do you think yours is??
LOL

Well, think about it.

My comment was a comment to a comment that I found to be an unhelpful comment (at least to me). So starting from a non-helpful comment, comments that are to follow from the very first (unhelpful) comment are bound to be unhelpful comments as well, kind of a snowball effect. If a comment in the same chain was to become (a) helpful (comment), then the comment(ator) would successfully dissociate (and divert) the conversation, topic (or whichever designation you want to give to this) from it's previous, usual (non-helpful) context.
In such a case the person would have evoked a hypnotic phenomenon.

But let's not get philosophical... :)

[sirius]

I use the "digital ice" feature on my Nikon neg scanner. It really is amazing. It can take out so much and still leave excellent detail where it belongs. I highly recommend this over scanning prints---my old and very time consuming method.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Wow that just works!!!

Thanks for the input guys, I've also given a quick wipe on the glass of the scanner and indeed there was already some dust on it!!!!

I am kind of at a loss to figure out what glass is getting dirty on your scanner, and how you are cleaning it. Unless you are using a paper scanner with an attachment you should not get dust from the scanner itself, unless you have it in a really dirty place.

Surely you are not trying to scan film with a flat bed?? Doesn't really work, it is just an emergency measure if you need something from a slide for the web.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I spray and wipe the film before every scan.
That's the problem right there, if the environment in which you do this is dusty, not only trapping the statically-gained dust and lint, but adding streaks, if you don't use something like Eclipse.

I'm a big believer of "a stich in time saves nine". If you develop your own, do it in a very clean area, from start to finish. If you have them developed, don't do it at a cheap photo lab, which cares about your film as much as you care about their wages. And the "you" there is plural, not you "you".

The other is to have a good "ICE" scanner. Nikon's Coolscans, Epson Photo 4990 (which is a flatbed, btw) and Minolta's Scan Pro are good examples.

Good luck!

[chikne]

I use the "digital ice" feature on my Nikon neg scanner. It really is amazing. It can take out so much and still leave excellent detail where it belongs. I highly recommend this over scanning prints---my old and very time consuming method.

Definitely, this is the fastest way of doing it. Though keep in mind that ICE only works with C-41 film and perhaps slide. Developing my own (b+w) film is something I really enjoy doing because it's so simple and cheap. I can't comment on developing C-41or E6, but as far as I know requires a lot of chemicals and to be more precise with temperatures.

I am kind of at a loss to figure out what glass is getting dirty on your scanner, and how you are cleaning it. Unless you are using a paper scanner with an attachment you should not get dust from the scanner itself, unless you have it in a really dirty place.

Surely you are not trying to scan film with a flat bed?? Doesn't really work, it is just an emergency measure if you need something from a slide for the web.

Hi, flatbed scanners have come a really long way from what they use to be years ago and you should check them out. But to answer your question, yes it's the glass of the flatbed scanner that I clean.

That's the problem right there, if the environment in which you do this is dusty, not only trapping the statically-gained dust and lint, but adding streaks, if you don't use something like Eclipse.

I don't know what Eclipse is.... Do you care to explain?

Again ICE doesn't work with B+W

[DougK]

Surely you are not trying to scan film with a flat bed?? Doesn't really work, it is just an emergency measure if you need something from a slide for the web.
I beg to differ.

I am consistently able to get better scans of both slides and negatives from my Epson 4870 flatbed than from my Konica Minolta Dual Scan IV. I don't have any side-by-side samples handy but I've run the same photos through both scanners and seen markedly better scans from the Epson, particularly with black-and-white film. I've even made 300 dpi 11" x 14" prints from the output, so I'd certainly say the quality you need is there.

Perhaps the difference between the scanners lies in the software provied by the manufacturers (I scan in PS Elements 2 using the manufacterer's plug-ins), I don't know. In any event, I would not be comfortable making the blanket statement that scanning film with a flatbed is only an emergency measure.

If you would like further information, you can check out a very thorough review at Photo-i (link: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm). It's what convinced me to buy the scanner.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I beg to differ.

I am consistently able to get better scans of both slides and negatives from my Epson 4870 flatbed than from my Konica Minolta Dual Scan IV.

That does not surprise me, I have a DiMage, and it is the worst piece of garbage I have been unfortunate enough to keep long enough not to be able to sell on eBay.

Flat bed --- you really like scans made that way? OK

[Gabriel M.A.]

I am consistently able to get better scans of both slides and negatives from my Epson 4870 flatbed than from my Konica Minolta Dual Scan IV.
By that statement I can tell that you've only used Minolta's bundled software, which sucks and blows.

Using VueScan or SilverFast unleashes the Dual Scan IV, to the point where the "prosumer" Epson scanners are shamed. I know, I own the Epson 2450, 4490, KM Dual Scan IV, and Nikon Coolscan 5000

[nikonhswebmaster]

By that statement I can tell that you've only used Minolta's bundled software, which sucks and blows.

Using VueScan or SilverFast unleashes the Dual Scan IV, to the point where the "prosumer" Epson scanners are shamed. I know, I own the Epson 2450, 4490, KM Dual Scan IV, and Nikon Coolscan 5000

mmm so I should not pitch my DiMage out? I really found the software that came with it useless.

[DougK]

By that statement I can tell that you've only used Minolta's bundled software, which sucks and blows.

Using VueScan or SilverFast unleashes the Dual Scan IV, to the point where the "prosumer" Epson scanners are shamed. I know, I own the Epson 2450, 4490, KM Dual Scan IV, and Nikon Coolscan 5000
I've never had much luck with getting SilverFast or Vuescan to run on my computers, so I really can't say yea or nay from my own experience with those packages. I've seen your results, though, and I can't argue with those :)

[DougK]

That does not surprise me, I have a DiMage, and it is the worst piece of garbage I have been unfortunate enough to keep long enough not to be able to sell on eBay.

Flat bed --- you really like scans made that way? OK
I was going to let this slide, but I really don't think I'm going to.

By the tone of your statement, you seem to assume that I am incompetent, stupid, blind, or some combination of the above. I assure you that none of these apply. Almost everything in my Flickr gallery that's film was scanned on my Epson and I've not heard any complaints from anyone about the technical qualities of those scans. Nor have I heard any complaints from people who have received prints made from those scans.

Frankly, I don't know who you are and I really don't care; it doesn't excuse you from being rude or having an unnceessarily snotty, superior attitude. If you can afford to have every frame of film drum scanned at a gazillion dpi in a hermetically sealed room, great, more power to you. I can't; I'm just a hobbyist trying to do the best I can with the gear I can afford. I'm more than willing to listen to helpful comments, such as the one Gabriel made a few minutes ago. If you just want to insult me, slag off.

[aad]

I get fine results with a standard SD IV. I like my flatbed, too-and maybe you should see the results Sanders McNew is getting with a flatbed-and he slaps the negatives right on the glass! I love it.

[peterm1]

Is there not software to help with this? I am sure I have a plugin for PS that can do basic dust and scratch removal but my recollection is that its not perfect in this regard and does visibly reduce sharpness and works best with prints rather than negs as this does not emphasise the imperfections so much when scanned. (It is possible however to resharpen afterwards although this is not a perfect solution.) I had thought I have seen some later (and presumably better) software for the purpose. I have howver, had the experience of scanning some old and not too well cared for negs with bad scratches that required lots of time manually removing scratches and dust. It is a pain but it certainly produces a result that cna be worth it.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I was going to let this slide, but I really don't think I'm going to.

Frankly, I don't know who you are and I really don't care; it doesn't excuse you from being rude or having an unnceessarily snotty, superior attitude. If you can afford to have every frame of film drum scanned at a gazillion dpi in a hermetically sealed room, great, more power to you. I can't; I'm just a hobbyist trying to do the best I can with the gear I can afford. I'm more than willing to listen to helpful comments, such as the one Gabriel made a few minutes ago. If you just want to insult me, slag off.

I am the guy who scans with a slide scanner I hate, and yes you can make decent scans for the web with a flat bed scanner, I do it all the time.

In a pinch you can make scans with a flat-bed, but few will be happy with them if you print very large. There was a time when a number of companies were pushing flat bed scanners for 35mm, and charging big bucks like Microtek, but not many were happy with them other than for proofing. They are handy for making contact sheets.

A good way it would seem to judge what you should spend on a scanner would be it should match the quality of the camera. So if someone is using an M8 and scanning on a $200 flat bed that makes little sense to me.

Settle down Beavis.

[anandi]

I've spend 3 hours on a panoramic image for a show and it still had scratches in the final print I missed. If I had to do it over again I would do this - shoot C41 colour. Scan it in with a Nikon V/5000 with ICE. Then convert it to B/W in PS. I know it's not as nice as shooting HP5 or something, but that's what I'll do next time in the same situation.

I have a Minolta SD IV and stock software. The vuescan suggestion is interesting - I tried the trial version and didn't get appreciably different results than stock, but it was much nicer to use, and maybe I should have spend more time with it. The clone tool I thought was the sophisticated way to deal with scratches! Now I should look at the PS heal tool - thanks for that.

What I ended up doing just last week was finally giving into the really dark side with a DSLR (see the Evil SLR forum for more) because I got tired of the shoot/scan/fix workflow.

Cheers,
-Amit

[nikonhswebmaster]

Is there not software to help with this? I am sure I have a plugin for PS that can do basic dust and scratch removal but my recollection is that its not perfect in this regard and does visibly reduce sharpness and works best with prints rather than negs as this does not emphasise the imperfections so much when scanned. (It is possible however to resharpen afterwards although this is not a perfect solution.) I had thought I have seen some later (and presumably better) software for the purpose. I have howver, had the experience of scanning some old and not too well cared for negs with bad scratches that required lots of time manually removing scratches and dust. It is a pain but it certainly produces a result that cna be worth it.

There is dust "dust and scratch" under "noise," but it is not really going to be what you want for a print, it works OK on smaller web photos, especially if you reduce them after running the filter. You have to do it with the clone and healing brush, and sometimes with the brush or pencil, no way around the work. 2 hours is not too long to spend on a good image, after all it was not unusual for someone to spend that long in a darkroom on a few images.

[DougK]

I am the guy who scans with a slide scanner I hate, and yes you can make decent scans for the web with a flat bed scanner, I do it all the time.

In a pinch you can make scans with a flat-bed, but few will be happy with them if you print very large. There was a time when a number of companies were pushing flat bed scanners for 35mm, and charging big bucks like Microtek, but not many were happy with them other than for proofing. They are handy for making contact sheets.

A good way it would seem to judge what you should spend on a scanner would be it should match the quality of the camera. So if someone is using an M8 and scanning on a $200 flat bed that makes little sense to me.

Settle down Beavis.
Now that is a much more reasonable, useful response and I thank you. In the future, however, try this approach first... your tone is difficult to read over the web.

[Gabriel M.A.]

So if someone is using an M8 and scanning on a $200 flat bed that makes little sense to me.
So, if you're wearing an Armani, it makes little sense to walk outside?

[chikne]

A good way it would seem to judge what you should spend on a scanner would be it should match the quality of the camera. So if someone is using an M8 and scanning on a $200 flat bed that makes little sense to me.

I've heard that some people find it hard to scan from their M8 :)

[nikonhswebmaster]

So, if you're wearing an Armani, it makes little sense to walk outside?

Not where I live. "Outside is VERY expensive. In fact "outside" is so expensive, that one wonders if it can be afforded by regular humans. I personally share my "outside" with an entire building. And the outside is very small compared to the "inside."

But actually I don't really understand your your joke, but I did my best with the material.

[patrickjames]

Well I am going to let you guys in on a little secret in Photoshop-

The dust and scratches too is not designed to eliminate dust and scratches by itself.

Use the dust and scratches tool at a setting that eliminates the d&s then select the history state before it, choose the history brush, select the box next to the last history state, change the brush mode to paint darker or lighter depending on the dust (choose opposite of dust) and paint away. No need to clone stamp ad infinitum.
You can also do this with a copy layer and a mask if you are not familiar with the history brush.

(Edit- I just read the first page of this thread and the above is the method T.O.P. is referring to.)

Second method and most accurate in the long run- make a new empty layer, choose clone tool and check the "use all layers" box. Select the new layer and all of your edits will be by themselves in the new layer. Do this before making any other layer corrections. You can also add noise to this layer if the corrections are too soft.

There are many other ways as well, but these are the easiest for those not completely conversant in Photoshop.

Even if you are completely anal and your cat sneezed on your negative you should be able to fix an image in a few minutes. All it takes is knowing how.

I have to add that the scanner is not as important as the person doing the scanning. People bitch too much in my opinion.


Patrick

Ps- I have been thinking of starting a blog or something to give instructions in Photoshop to make it easier for people to use film. Anyone have any interest?

[sirius]

Why doesn't the digital ice software work for b+w film?

[chikne]

I have been thinking of starting a blog or something to give instructions in Photoshop to make it easier for people to use film. Anyone have any interest?

Yeah !!!!!!!!!!!

Why doesn't the digital ice software work for b+w film?

It's something to do with silver halides that don't respond to infrared, something in that area....

[nikonhswebmaster]

Well I am going to let you guys in on a little secret in Photoshop-

The dust and scratches too is not designed to eliminate dust and scratches by itself.

Use the dust and scratches tool at a setting that eliminates the d&s then select the history state before it, choose the history brush, select the box next to the last history state, change the brush mode to paint darker or lighter depending on the dust (choose opposite of dust) and paint away. No need to clone stamp ad infinitum.
You can also do this with a copy layer and a mask if you are not familiar with the history brush.



For me that has not worked all that well, like the healing brush, I can see where the defects were fixed when I enlarge to native size for prints (I print about 24x36 or larger).

Here is what Adobe thinks the filter is supposed to do...

Choose Filter > Noise > Dust & Scratches.
If necessary, adjust the preview zoom ratio until the area containing noise is visible.

Drag the Threshold slider left to 0 to turn off the value so that all pixels in the selection or image can be examined.

The Threshold value determines how dissimilar the pixels should be before they are eliminated.

Note: The Threshold slider gives greater control for values between 0 and 128—the most common range for images—than for values between 128 and 255.

Drag the Radius slider left or right, or enter a value in the text box from 1 to 16 pixels. The Radius value determines the size of the area searched for dissimilar pixels.

Increasing the radius blurs the image. Use the smallest value that eliminates the defects.

Increase the threshold gradually by entering a value or by dragging the slider to the highest possible value that eliminates defects.

As you note the only way to use this filter without ruining the entire image is to make a layer and use that layer with the clone tool.

So for me...

The "Patrick-method" works on landscapes very well, not so well on what I do. I photograph miniatures which must be cleaned of the inevitable dust that settles on them (see my avatar). I end up using the clone tool set to only a few pixels, or the healing brush. I sometimes spend two days on an image, simply because each disturbed pixel must not look disturbed because I am enlarging so much that I am at a very low dpi.

[jan normandale]

Fwiw .. I use a KMDS IV and an Epson 4490.. all the stuff is available but I don't spend too much time tidying up my shots because most of them are done using 'clean' stuff. I use photoflow for the final rinse and ensure little to no dust. I wear cotton gloves to handle the negs. I use a 'bulb' to blow all the visible dust off the neg or slides.

After all that I spend perhaps 10 to 15 min max on a neg most times it's less than 5 minutes. Most scanning issues are a result of the handling and storage.

[ChrisN]

...

I have been thinking of starting a blog or something to give instructions in Photoshop to make it easier for people to use film. Anyone have any interest?

Patrick - yes please! For those of us who have very patchy skills with PS (is that a pun?) with each procedure described could you start with an over-view of what the aim is and broadly what the tools do? For example - your mention of the history state, brushes and "painting away". More information needed!

And Fred's last post highlights something - it implies (I might be wrong) that he is mostly concerned about dust on the subject, which appears in the image, whereas many of us are more concerned about dust on the negative causing imperfections in the scan. I suspect these are two different problems which could well require different approaches to fix.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Patrick - yes please!

And Fred's last post highlights something - it implies (I might be wrong) that he is mostly concerned about dust on the subject, which appears in the image, whereas many of us are more concerned about dust on the negative causing imperfections in the scan. I suspect these are two different problems which could well require different approaches to fix.

Yes I have dust on the subject, but the result is similar in the sense I must remove something from the image and replace it in such a way that it will not be noticed. Since I print very large I end up printing at 72 DPI (what you see on your monitor) at full native size for the scan or the digital image. This makes it important that the pixels replaced look as perfect as possible, because the viewer can really see them if I screw up.

[nikonhswebmaster]

If I had a M8 I wouldnt use any money on a scanner;)

Just shows what I think of the M8... I still think all Leicas are film cameras in my head...

[jan normandale]

@ "N-webstr" do you have a website or flickr acct? I'd like to see some of your stuff. cheers, Jan

[SergioGuerra]

I dont pass a single second as you can see here:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2331/1604520396_6bb0d4003e.jpg

eehheeheh

Dust is just part of the game ;)