Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
tim sewell
Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving the
legibility of old records?
Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most
photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
type advice.
I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of a
clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but not
on the scanned record. The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
records?
I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
legibility of old records?
Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most
photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
type advice.
I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of a
clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but not
on the scanned record. The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
records?
I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
-
Pam
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
A lot depends on what needs to be done to improve the legibility. I'm
assuming you're talking about somewhat faded records. I generally start out
with autolevels in Photoshop and then slide the black, white and grey
markers a bit. It is a lot of trial and error because each record may
require something different. I'll change to greyscale and then play a bit
with brightness and contrast. Sometimes I have to select an area and work
on that alone. You can also change the levels layer from normal to
multiply. I'll also use unsharp mask to sharpen the record if it seems a
little blurry. There's no magic button to do it all and you sound as if
you're doing okay if you get results.
I don't know of any books or tutorials that deal specifically with old
records. I like the book Photoshop Restoration and Retouching but that
deals with photographs, not records.
Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving
the
legibility of old records?
Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by
most
photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
type advice.
I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of
a
clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
A lot depends on what needs to be done to improve the legibility. I'm
assuming you're talking about somewhat faded records. I generally start out
with autolevels in Photoshop and then slide the black, white and grey
markers a bit. It is a lot of trial and error because each record may
require something different. I'll change to greyscale and then play a bit
with brightness and contrast. Sometimes I have to select an area and work
on that alone. You can also change the levels layer from normal to
multiply. I'll also use unsharp mask to sharpen the record if it seems a
little blurry. There's no magic button to do it all and you sound as if
you're doing okay if you get results.
I don't know of any books or tutorials that deal specifically with old
records. I like the book Photoshop Restoration and Retouching but that
deals with photographs, not records.
Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net
-
mickg
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
tim sewell wrote:
tools Pick out areas that need improvement and use levels, brightess and
contrast carefully on just the area, Area selection which can be a block
or a custome selected shape makes the levels etc settings happen only in
that area.
ALWAYS do this on a copy keeping the original as it was as a separate file.
MickG
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving the
legibility of old records?
Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most
photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
type advice.
I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of a
clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but not
on the scanned record. The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
records?
I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
Using Photoshop try Autolevels then autocontrast. Then using selection
tools Pick out areas that need improvement and use levels, brightess and
contrast carefully on just the area, Area selection which can be a block
or a custome selected shape makes the levels etc settings happen only in
that area.
ALWAYS do this on a copy keeping the original as it was as a separate file.
MickG
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
tim sewell wrote:
I don't have the answer that you're looking for as that's what I do also
including negative image. What works varies according to the image. It's
worth emphasizing that these programs can't bring out detail that simply
isn't there to begin with.
Something is terribly wrong with the scan in that case. You could take a
look at the image information for those images on CD (Paintshop, click
View-Image Information). For display purposes at original size, those
may be set at 72dpi which doesn't capture enough detail.
I find that scanning a document is a more effective way to make out
characters on a document than a magnifying glass, but the resolution
needs to be there. I might scan something like that at 600dpi or better
to check results. If the scan is not as legible as the image in the
viewer and there is no resolution option when going to CD, then I would
opt to print the document and scan it yourself at a better density.
Just remember that if it isn't there to begin with, no magic can bring
it out.
Bob
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving the
legibility of old records?
Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most
photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
type advice.
I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of a
clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
I don't have the answer that you're looking for as that's what I do also
including negative image. What works varies according to the image. It's
worth emphasizing that these programs can't bring out detail that simply
isn't there to begin with.
I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but not
on the scanned record.
Something is terribly wrong with the scan in that case. You could take a
look at the image information for those images on CD (Paintshop, click
View-Image Information). For display purposes at original size, those
may be set at 72dpi which doesn't capture enough detail.
The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
I find that scanning a document is a more effective way to make out
characters on a document than a magnifying glass, but the resolution
needs to be there. I might scan something like that at 600dpi or better
to check results. If the scan is not as legible as the image in the
viewer and there is no resolution option when going to CD, then I would
opt to print the document and scan it yourself at a better density.
None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
records?
I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
Just remember that if it isn't there to begin with, no magic can bring
it out.
Bob
-
singhals
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
tim sewell wrote:
As others have said, if it's not on the film itself, it won't be on the
scan. And, as they have also said, trial and error is the ONLY way
you'll get good results for the section of the page that you really
really want to read.
Re the film scan at the FHC -- the viewer has a light control knob on
the front -- use it without regard to the markings which are color-coded
to the lens. Some of those settings put a darker spot in the middle of
the page to compensate for the bull's=eye lighting on the film, some
light the entire page evenly, some put a brighter spot in the middle of
the page.
ALWAYS use the grey-scale imaging, and in some applications on the
thing, the JPG is larger than the TIFF because the JPG is color and the
TIFF is a compressed B&W. This is important because often color scans
can be more satisfactorily tweaked than B&W/grey-scales.
To be more helpful than that about that, I'd need to know the brand
names of the hardware involved *and* the exact name of the program
you're using to make your scans.
Cheryl
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving the
legibility of old records?
Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most
photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
type advice.
I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of a
clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but not
on the scanned record. The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
records?
I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
As others have said, if it's not on the film itself, it won't be on the
scan. And, as they have also said, trial and error is the ONLY way
you'll get good results for the section of the page that you really
really want to read.
Re the film scan at the FHC -- the viewer has a light control knob on
the front -- use it without regard to the markings which are color-coded
to the lens. Some of those settings put a darker spot in the middle of
the page to compensate for the bull's=eye lighting on the film, some
light the entire page evenly, some put a brighter spot in the middle of
the page.
ALWAYS use the grey-scale imaging, and in some applications on the
thing, the JPG is larger than the TIFF because the JPG is color and the
TIFF is a compressed B&W. This is important because often color scans
can be more satisfactorily tweaked than B&W/grey-scales.
To be more helpful than that about that, I'd need to know the brand
names of the hardware involved *and* the exact name of the program
you're using to make your scans.
Cheryl
-
CWatters
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
That sounds like the scanner setting is wrong.. It sounds like the setting
for the "number of bits per pixel" is too low".
At 1 bit per pixel you only get Black and white. eg Any data that is grey on
the original is converted to black or white.
At 2 bits per pixel you get black, white and two shades of grey. This still
means that some very light greys are converted to white and some very dark
greys are converted to black.
In other words subtle shades are lost at low numbers of "bits per pixel".
Ideally you need to scan at at least 4 bits per pixel (black, white, and 14
shades of grey) or 8 bits per pixel (black, white and 254 shades of grey).
Any higher is probably not necessary.
The problem is that an image scanned at 8 bits per pixel requires 8 times as
much disk space as one scanned at 1 bit per pixel.
Don't scan in colour unless the original is in colour and the colours are
important.
Colin
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but
not
on the scanned record.
That sounds like the scanner setting is wrong.. It sounds like the setting
for the "number of bits per pixel" is too low".
At 1 bit per pixel you only get Black and white. eg Any data that is grey on
the original is converted to black or white.
At 2 bits per pixel you get black, white and two shades of grey. This still
means that some very light greys are converted to white and some very dark
greys are converted to black.
In other words subtle shades are lost at low numbers of "bits per pixel".
Ideally you need to scan at at least 4 bits per pixel (black, white, and 14
shades of grey) or 8 bits per pixel (black, white and 254 shades of grey).
Any higher is probably not necessary.
The problem is that an image scanned at 8 bits per pixel requires 8 times as
much disk space as one scanned at 1 bit per pixel.
Don't scan in colour unless the original is in colour and the colours are
important.
Colin
-
Maloney Empire
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
Sometimes colouring the image yellow helps to bring out the very light
lettering.
I use this idea when transcribing for FreeBMD.
Another method I use is to tape yellow cellophane onto the monitor - this
can also bring out the lettering.
--
Di Maloney
Please remove 1 from email address to reply direct.
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving
the
| legibility of old records?
|
| Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by
most
| photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
| type advice.
|
| I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
| basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
| with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of
a
| clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
|
| I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
| installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
| areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but
not
| on the scanned record. The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
| varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
| record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
| the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
|
| None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
| being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
| no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
| records?
|
| I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
|
| --
| Tim S.
| (if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
| my fairly obvious spamtrap)
|
|
|
lettering.
I use this idea when transcribing for FreeBMD.
Another method I use is to tape yellow cellophane onto the monitor - this
can also bring out the lettering.
--
Di Maloney
Please remove 1 from email address to reply direct.
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving
the
| legibility of old records?
|
| Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by
most
| photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
| type advice.
|
| I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
| basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
| with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of
a
| clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!
|
| I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
| installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
| areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but
not
| on the scanned record. The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
| varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
| record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
| the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.
|
| None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
| being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
| no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
| records?
|
| I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
|
| --
| Tim S.
| (if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
| my fairly obvious spamtrap)
|
|
|
-
tim sewell
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Many thanks to all of you for your input. Please be assured that I am not
trying to regenerate data that is not visible on the films.
For the record, our scanner produces 300 dpi, 8 bit tif files. Access to
the scanner controls etc is limited to those LDS church members and
volunteer helpers who have been undergone a degree of relevant training.
Generally the outcome has been more than good enough for my purposes with
nil to very little tweaking. Sadly, a change of parish has suddenly opened
me to a different world!
On the basis of my previous experience, I have always said to the scanner
operator "that will do very well" as soon as the scanned image appears on
the monitor. A bit like my standard response to the barber after he has
finished cutting my hair - what else can one say?
From now on I may
be more discerning, and see if the detail that matters to me can be tweaked
somewhat.
My latest film was photographed as a negative (the first time I have seen
this - that should give you all an indication of my newbieness). I gaily
said "Don't worry about that - I'll reverse the scan at home". I will,
however, return to see if the scanner software does a better job than I do
in that regard.
I am both encouraged and depressed by your responses.
I have learnt of two "new" ideas (new to me, that is) - applying contrast
etc adjustments to a selected area, and trying the effect of adding a yellow
filter.
But it appears from quite a few of your replies that my "fiddling around",
"trial and error"and "pure guesswork" is almost World's Best Practice. I do
find that a seriously depressing thought!
Again, thankyou for your collective wisdom.
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving
the
legibility of old records?
Many thanks to all of you for your input. Please be assured that I am not
trying to regenerate data that is not visible on the films.
For the record, our scanner produces 300 dpi, 8 bit tif files. Access to
the scanner controls etc is limited to those LDS church members and
volunteer helpers who have been undergone a degree of relevant training.
Generally the outcome has been more than good enough for my purposes with
nil to very little tweaking. Sadly, a change of parish has suddenly opened
me to a different world!
On the basis of my previous experience, I have always said to the scanner
operator "that will do very well" as soon as the scanned image appears on
the monitor. A bit like my standard response to the barber after he has
finished cutting my hair - what else can one say?
be more discerning, and see if the detail that matters to me can be tweaked
somewhat.
My latest film was photographed as a negative (the first time I have seen
this - that should give you all an indication of my newbieness). I gaily
said "Don't worry about that - I'll reverse the scan at home". I will,
however, return to see if the scanner software does a better job than I do
in that regard.
I am both encouraged and depressed by your responses.
I have learnt of two "new" ideas (new to me, that is) - applying contrast
etc adjustments to a selected area, and trying the effect of adding a yellow
filter.
But it appears from quite a few of your replies that my "fiddling around",
"trial and error"and "pure guesswork" is almost World's Best Practice. I do
find that a seriously depressing thought!
Again, thankyou for your collective wisdom.
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
-
Bret Ellis
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
Hi Tim,
I have used a similar "trick" years ago when having to photocopy faded
documents.
By placing your document over yellow cellophane or in a yellow document
holder and then scanning it may bring out the faded details.
Best of luck.
Bret
"Maloney Empire" <1sascar@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:435b16af@news.alphalink.com.au...
snip
I have used a similar "trick" years ago when having to photocopy faded
documents.
By placing your document over yellow cellophane or in a yellow document
holder and then scanning it may bring out the faded details.
Best of luck.
Bret
"Maloney Empire" <1sascar@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:435b16af@news.alphalink.com.au...
Sometimes colouring the image yellow helps to bring out the very light
lettering.
I use this idea when transcribing for FreeBMD.
Another method I use is to tape yellow cellophane onto the monitor - this
can also bring out the lettering.
--
Di Maloney
Please remove 1 from email address to reply direct.
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:435a18a4$0$28782$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving
the
| legibility of old records?
|
| Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by
most
| photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
| type advice.
snip
| I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.
|
| --
| Tim S.
| (if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
| my fairly obvious spamtrap)
|
|
|
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
There is one key trick in Photoshop for some old documents.
This only works if they are scanned at at least 5 bits:
"Filter" then "Other" then "High pass"
and set to a fairly large number, like 50 or even 200.
This will equalize the exposure across the image. You will then need
to increase the contrast with either the contrast or the curves
adjustment.
This is a key, magic, invaluable trick.
Doug McDonald
This only works if they are scanned at at least 5 bits:
"Filter" then "Other" then "High pass"
and set to a fairly large number, like 50 or even 200.
This will equalize the exposure across the image. You will then need
to increase the contrast with either the contrast or the curves
adjustment.
This is a key, magic, invaluable trick.
Doug McDonald
-
Sláinte
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
Hello tim,
In the corel.PaintShopPro newsgroup, in the thread "Subj: Cleaning up
scanned images" dated 8/18/2005-8/21/2005, poster SpandexRutabaga shows the
process she used, with jpgs attached showing results, to clean up the
scanned text of an old document presented to the ng. She used tools other
than contrast/sharpen. You might find something useful in this exchange
(more like a mini-tutorial).
The newsgroup address can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2pt9o ; scroll down
to Paint Shop Pro 9 on th eright, then click the link. The newsgroup will
open in your newsreader.
Best, Carol
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on
improving the legibility of old records?
In the corel.PaintShopPro newsgroup, in the thread "Subj: Cleaning up
scanned images" dated 8/18/2005-8/21/2005, poster SpandexRutabaga shows the
process she used, with jpgs attached showing results, to clean up the
scanned text of an old document presented to the ng. She used tools other
than contrast/sharpen. You might find something useful in this exchange
(more like a mini-tutorial).
The newsgroup address can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2pt9o ; scroll down
to Paint Shop Pro 9 on th eright, then click the link. The newsgroup will
open in your newsreader.
Best, Carol
-
tim sewell
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
"Sláinte" <liafail@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:0PidnR05mPr8VsbeRVn-vw@metrocastcablevision.com...
Hi, Carol.
That is a simply brilliant sequence of posts - thankyou very much indeed for
the link.
So much for my "fiddling about" etc being close to World's Best Practice!
In my disorganised attempts at image improvement I had fiddled about with
histograms, but I was really working blind, and did not see much real
progress. Next time could be very different.
I am encouraged that our default scan setting is 8 bits, but tomorrow I will
see how difficult it is to increase that to (say)16 or 32 for the more
difficult scans. At least I will be able to omit the initial steps required
to overcome the problem of dithering to simulate various shades of grey.
I have, for my own use, combined the three later posts into a single Word
document. I will try to contact SpandexRutabaga to see if she will agree to
my making that document available to anyone who asks for it. Don't rush
until I give the sign
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
news:0PidnR05mPr8VsbeRVn-vw@metrocastcablevision.com...
Hello tim,
Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on
improving the legibility of old records?
In the corel.PaintShopPro newsgroup, in the thread "Subj: Cleaning up
scanned images" dated 8/18/2005-8/21/2005, poster SpandexRutabaga shows
the
process she used, with jpgs attached showing results, to clean up the
scanned text of an old document presented to the ng. She used tools other
than contrast/sharpen. You might find something useful in this exchange
(more like a mini-tutorial).
The newsgroup address can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2pt9o ; scroll
down
to Paint Shop Pro 9 on the right, then click the link. The newsgroup will
open in your newsreader.
Best, Carol
Hi, Carol.
That is a simply brilliant sequence of posts - thankyou very much indeed for
the link.
So much for my "fiddling about" etc being close to World's Best Practice!
In my disorganised attempts at image improvement I had fiddled about with
histograms, but I was really working blind, and did not see much real
progress. Next time could be very different.
I am encouraged that our default scan setting is 8 bits, but tomorrow I will
see how difficult it is to increase that to (say)16 or 32 for the more
difficult scans. At least I will be able to omit the initial steps required
to overcome the problem of dithering to simulate various shades of grey.
I have, for my own use, combined the three later posts into a single Word
document. I will try to contact SpandexRutabaga to see if she will agree to
my making that document available to anyone who asks for it. Don't rush
until I give the sign
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
-
tim sewell
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:djgeqn$7ug$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Doug,
Thanks for that. My initial attempts using the "McDonald filter" look
promising, but I obviously have some way to go.
Come to think of it, while you have set my mind to thinking about
McDonalds - do you have a similar "magic trick" for filtering MacDonald
ancestors?
My mother-in-law was Mona MacDonald, daughter of Kenneth MacDonald
(Traveller, son of John MacDonald, Coppersmith) and Flora MacDonald
(Daughter of Donald MacDonald, Engine Driver, born in Scotland 1833 or so),
who married in Sunderland in 1891. From the 1881 census I know that Flora
was born in Bishop Wearmouth, but I haven't been able to identify Kenneth in
the 1881 census, I don't know where he was born and all relevant parties are
now well deceased. And the sheer number of MacDonalds is somewhat
overwhelming!
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
news:djgeqn$7ug$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
There is one key trick in Photoshop for some old documents.
This only works if they are scanned at at least 5 bits:
"Filter" then "Other" then "High pass"
and set to a fairly large number, like 50 or even 200.
This will equalize the exposure across the image. You will then need
to increase the contrast with either the contrast or the curves
adjustment.
This is a key, magic, invaluable trick.
Doug McDonald
Doug,
Thanks for that. My initial attempts using the "McDonald filter" look
promising, but I obviously have some way to go.
Come to think of it, while you have set my mind to thinking about
McDonalds - do you have a similar "magic trick" for filtering MacDonald
ancestors?
My mother-in-law was Mona MacDonald, daughter of Kenneth MacDonald
(Traveller, son of John MacDonald, Coppersmith) and Flora MacDonald
(Daughter of Donald MacDonald, Engine Driver, born in Scotland 1833 or so),
who married in Sunderland in 1891. From the 1881 census I know that Flora
was born in Bishop Wearmouth, but I haven't been able to identify Kenneth in
the 1881 census, I don't know where he was born and all relevant parties are
now well deceased. And the sheer number of MacDonalds is somewhat
overwhelming!
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)
-
tim sewell
Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
"tim sewell" <postmantim2@myfairlyobviousspamtrapoptusnet.com.au> wrote
Fell at the first hurdle - the spamtrap in SpandexRutabaga's post tripped me
up
Tim S.
I have, for my own use, combined the three later posts into a single Word
document. I will try to contact SpandexRutabaga to see if she will agree
to
my making that document available to anyone who asks for it.
Fell at the first hurdle - the spamtrap in SpandexRutabaga's post tripped me
up
Tim S.
--
Tim S.
(if you wish to reply directly, please eliminate
my fairly obvious spamtrap)