leenapink

try making the image 600 px wide.
then use the "save for web" option and use the quiality slider on the right to control the size
see attached.

Lasa

limey

ok here we go again, by george I think I've got it :surprised:

leenapink

I would use a combination of? dust / scratch first, then? clone / healing / patch tools..you've got a great picture..very clean.

When you use the Dust and scratch are you masking? Otherwise its a mess.
The way dust/scratch works for me is to duplicate the original then run run D/S. When you start D/S set both sliders to R1 / T0 then move the radius slider to the right until the specs started disappearing. Once blurred, then move the threshold to the right until the specs strat appearing again then pull back a little, then ok.(You might be able leave it R1 and T0 don't over do it)

Now click the add vector mask(black sqaure with a white circle). it will add a mask to the D/S layer (a white rectangle to its right) fill the screen with black with the paint bucket. This should reveal everthing, looks just like the original. Now get a small WHITE soft brush and paint over the scratches and marks. They should disappear.

You can actually do the same but substitute the D/S with a slight Blur..use a very low G-blur.

Hope it helps,

Lasa

? ?

limey

Thanks Lasa for all of your patience and your great help. I will probably be back with more questions on your method of masking etc.

Sark

limey.

lasa's method of masking is basically the same as that I described for correcting exposure. You do not have to worry about over doing Dust & Scratches on some parts of the image, because you can paint in only the areas that require correcting/cleaning after applying the black filled layer mask.

Sark

limey

Yes Sark, you are right it is just the same. It didn't hurt though to get it drummed into me again though, my original problem kind of got left in the dust (no pun intended).
That was the waffle pattern showing up after printing. I managed to solve that myself though I found it was caused by trying to print out too large a picture. I was trying for an 8x10 but settled for 5x7 and the waffle disappeared.

Sark

Yes. Sometimes you just have to accept that there is a limit to the size of print you can get from a file without quality being a serious issue. Particularly with an older image, which in this case I'm guessing was a scan from a print.

Sark

limey

You know the odd thing about the picture was the weird res. and size after I had downloaded it from the Power Point presentation.
It was something like 2.5 x 1.5 at 2000 resolution, any thoughts on that Sark.

Sark

Generally speaking, the DPI is of no relevence to displayed images, only printed images. The DPI is just a tag included with the image file. It is used to tell the printer how large the pixels should print.

Images displayed on screen are mapped to the monitor's res, normally around 72DPI. Likewise in PS. It's the number of pixels that determine displayed size, not the DPI. The only exception to this is vector drawing programs, which will display the image according to the DPI. This is why I always import images into a vector app at a multiple of 72DPI (144DPI, or 288DPI etc). This ensures clean display when viewing at 100% zoom.

I've never used Power point so I'm not sure if this works similar to a vector app, but I doubt it. My guess is, the original was scanned from a negative, hence the high res.? There was no need to change the DPI setting because only the number of pixels would affect the size of display in Power point.

Sark

limey

Thanks Sark, very interesting a lot of good information there.