«

In article <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>, "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.]

Cheers, Phred.

--
(E-Mail Removed)D

Phred wrote:
> In article <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>, "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

[CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]

In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Phred wrote:
>> In article
> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?)

Cheers, Phred.

--
(E-Mail Removed)D

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Phred wrote:
>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>
>> In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Phred wrote:
>>>> In article
>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:56:11 +1000, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Phred wrote:
>>>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>>>
>>>> In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Phred wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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."
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
>>
>> "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."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

Phred wrote:
> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>
> In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Phred wrote:
>>> In article
>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Phred wrote:
>>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>>
>>> In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Phred wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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."
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
>
> "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 02:56:11 +1000, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:50:01 +1000, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phred wrote:
>>>>> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> Phred wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842-8271-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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."
>>>
>>> <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
>>>
>>> "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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Phred expounded in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>
> In article <4afa711a$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Larter
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Phred wrote:
...
>>The process relies on residual chroma information retained on
>>cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
...
> 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. ...
>
> Cheers, Phred.

My wife and I just bought a small unit for $80 Cdn at Costco.
You can use it via USB, or just in your lap in front of the TV,
scanning into a memory stick. 5.x MP full colour scanned images.

Scan is more of a 0.5 second "picture take", since there is no
moving parts. You just advance the tray manually for the next
slide (or negative). It's quick compared to a scanner. You
spend all your time loading/unloading the slide tray.

Warren