Sandi P. wrote:

How can I remove the matte texture from photos I've scanned? I'm using the 'descreening' feature in my scanning software when I scan photos with the matte finish, but it doesn't do the trick. I'm still left with mottled scanned images. How can I remove this texture look in Gimp? I've tried doing some Gaussian Blur and then Unsharp Mask, but am just not getting good results. What am I doing wrong? Step by step instructions would be great cause I'm still pretty new Gimp user. Please help, thanks!

Could you show us an example of what you get?

On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote:

I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318163@N04/

Img137 is a sample of matte finish processing that even with Gaussian Blur and Unsharpening can't remove the texture look. Img138 is an example of portrait texture that I'm having problems removing/minimizing.
Thanks again.
Sandi

Could you show us an example of what you get?

Sandi,

On Img137 (four people), is the shadow behind the people, especially their heads, in the actual photograph or is that an artifact of scanning? If the latter, then there is some other problem.

However, I am impressed that they look as good as they do.

My wife just scanned a couple hundred pictures of the same era as yours on all sorts of photographic papers, including matte and textured. Your results are in the 97% percentile as far as I am concerned.

When you start with crap -- which most old family photos are -- you can't really improve upon them much. You may be able to minimize further degradation, but you can't create quality where it does not exist.

Jay

Jay Smith wrote:

On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote:

I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318163@N04/

Img137 is a sample of matte finish processing that even with Gaussian Blur and Unsharpening can't remove the texture look. Img138 is an example of portrait texture that I'm having problems removing/minimizing.
Thanks again.
Sandi

Could you show us an example of what you get?

Sandi,

On Img137 (four people), is the shadow behind the people, especially their heads, in the actual photograph or is that an artifact of scanning? If the latter, then there is some other problem.

However, I am impressed that they look as good as they do.

My wife just scanned a couple hundred pictures of the same era as yours on all sorts of photographic papers, including matte and textured. Your results are in the 97% percentile as far as I am concerned.

When you start with crap -- which most old family photos are -- you can't really improve upon them much. You may be able to minimize further degradation, but you can't create quality where it does not exist.

Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi at the very least.

On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote:

I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318163@N04/

Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi at the very least.

I agree with the comments and would add that if you really want to achieve the best possible than scan at 600dpi and take it from there.

Norman

On 10/03/2010 12:02 PM, Norman Silverstone wrote:

On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote:

I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318163@N04/

Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi at the very least.

I agree with the comments and would add that if you really want to achieve the best possible than scan at 600dpi and take it from there.

Norman