In article <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
>On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >> gamut colour recovery"?
Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
[But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.]
Phred wrote: > In article <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>> gamut colour recovery"? >> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/
> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested > because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously > degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was > foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded > image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.]
The process relies on residual chroma information retained on cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop (16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to the 70's.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
<bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: >Phred wrote: >> In article > <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>>> gamut colour recovery"? >>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/
>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested >> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously >> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was >> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded >> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.]
>The process relies on residual chroma information retained on >cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits >per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop >(16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, >an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to >the 70's.
Thanks for that advice Bob. Have you tried that approach with slides? I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist? I haven't seen mention of them for a few years now, not even ads. Perhaps like so much else, they have succumbed to the mediocrity of the masses?)
Phred wrote: > [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
> In article <4afa711...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter > <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Phred wrote: >>> In article >> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >> "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>>>> gamut colour recovery"? >>>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/ >>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested >>> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously >>> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was >>> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded >>> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.] >> The process relies on residual chroma information retained on >> cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>> Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits >> per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop >> (16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, >> an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to >> the 70's.
> Thanks for that advice Bob.
My pleasure.
> Have you tried that approach with slides?
No, I haven't. I've never shot slides on a regular basis.
> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning > slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive > dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist?
They sure do. Now would be a good time to pick up a used one cheap, while all the pro's are converting to DSLRs. I haven't shot slide film much myself, but I'm told that Nikon make a good slide scanner. I'm sure that other people in the group will be able to make good suggestions as to what's available now. [rec.photo.digital added]
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>Phred wrote: >> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>> In article <4afa711...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Phred wrote: >>>> In article >>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >>> "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>>>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>>>>> gamut colour recovery"? >>>>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/ >>>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested >>>> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously >>>> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was >>>> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>>>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded >>>> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>>>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.] >>> The process relies on residual chroma information retained on >>> cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>>> Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits >>> per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop >>> (16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, >>> an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to >>> the 70's.
>> Thanks for that advice Bob.
>My pleasure.
>> Have you tried that approach with slides?
>No, I haven't. I've never shot slides on a regular basis.
>> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning >> slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive >> dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist?
>They sure do. Now would be a good time to pick up a used one cheap, >while all the pro's are converting to DSLRs. >I haven't shot slide film much myself, but I'm told that Nikon make a >good slide scanner. I'm sure that other people in the group will be able >to make good suggestions as to what's available now. >[rec.photo.digital added]
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Phred wrote: >>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>> In article <4afa711...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Phred wrote: >>>>> In article >>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >>>> "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>>>>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>>>>>> gamut colour recovery"? >>>>>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/ >>>>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested >>>>> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously >>>>> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was >>>>> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>>>>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded >>>>> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>>>>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.] >>>> The process relies on residual chroma information retained on >>>> cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>>>> Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits >>>> per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop >>>> (16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, >>>> an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to >>>> the 70's. >>> Thanks for that advice Bob. >> My pleasure.
>>> Have you tried that approach with slides? >> No, I haven't. I've never shot slides on a regular basis.
>>> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning >>> slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive >>> dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist? >> They sure do. Now would be a good time to pick up a used one cheap, >> while all the pro's are converting to DSLRs. >> I haven't shot slide film much myself, but I'm told that Nikon make a >> good slide scanner. I'm sure that other people in the group will be able >> to make good suggestions as to what's available now. >> [rec.photo.digital added]
> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer > Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: > alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) > Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
> "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Don't mind the troll, Phred, he always follows up my posts with this rubbish. ;^)
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Phred wrote: >>>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>>> In article <4afa711...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>>> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Phred wrote: >>>>>> In article >>>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>>>>>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>>>>>>> gamut colour recovery"? >>>>>>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/ >>>>>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested >>>>>> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously >>>>>> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was >>>>>> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>>>>>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded >>>>>> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>>>>>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.] >>>>> The process relies on residual chroma information retained on >>>>> cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>>>>> Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits >>>>> per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop >>>>> (16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, >>>>> an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to >>>>> the 70's. >>>> Thanks for that advice Bob. >>> My pleasure.
>>>> Have you tried that approach with slides? >>> No, I haven't. I've never shot slides on a regular basis.
>>>> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning >>>> slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive >>>> dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist? >>> They sure do. Now would be a good time to pick up a used one cheap, >>> while all the pro's are converting to DSLRs. >>> I haven't shot slide film much myself, but I'm told that Nikon make a >>> good slide scanner. I'm sure that other people in the group will be able >>> to make good suggestions as to what's available now. >>> [rec.photo.digital added]
>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer >> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: >> alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) >> Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
>Don't mind the troll, Phred, he always follows up my posts with this >rubbish. ;^)
It would only be rubbish if it weren't true.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:56:11 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> Phred wrote: >>>>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>>>> In article <4afa711...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>>>> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Phred wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>>>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-932d16229...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote: >>>>>>>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full >>>>>>>>> gamut colour recovery"? >>>>>>>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/ >>>>>>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested >>>>>>> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously >>>>>>> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was >>>>>>> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>>>>>>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded >>>>>>> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>>>>>>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.] >>>>>> The process relies on residual chroma information retained on >>>>>> cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>>>>>> Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits >>>>>> per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop >>>>>> (16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking, >>>>>> an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to >>>>>> the 70's. >>>>> Thanks for that advice Bob. >>>> My pleasure.
>>>>> Have you tried that approach with slides? >>>> No, I haven't. I've never shot slides on a regular basis.
>>>>> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning >>>>> slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive >>>>> dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist? >>>> They sure do. Now would be a good time to pick up a used one cheap, >>>> while all the pro's are converting to DSLRs. >>>> I haven't shot slide film much myself, but I'm told that Nikon make a >>>> good slide scanner. I'm sure that other people in the group will be able >>>> to make good suggestions as to what's available now. >>>> [rec.photo.digital added]
>>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer >>> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: >>> alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) >>> Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer." >> Don't mind the troll, Phred, he always follows up my posts with this >> rubbish. ;^)
> It would only be rubbish if it weren't true.
*belch*
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
|
