I have a textured photo to repair and when I scan it, the texture can be seen. I read somewhere a while back, how to reduce the texture but can't remember. I also can't remember what the paper surface is called, satin, velvet or something like that. I am using PhotoShop 6

Try here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=565) and here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40) for ideas. Feel free to join in the discussion on those threads, or ask further questions here. Also, a search for 'texture' will show many other discussions on the subject.

Here's (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=992&highlight=pattern+removal) one that shows a promising filter with examples. Mig shows an example of Eye Fidelity Tools.
Here's (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53&highlight=pattern+removal) another one that Doug started on Fovea Pro software. You might find some interesting things in both these treads.
It is a difficult thing to deal with and as you will read many members have had that same problem including me. Good luck in your research.
DJ

Far as I know, EFT is still a "demo" and not available for sale. Too bad... looks like it has real promise.

Here's a quick before/after using the "reduce grain" function in a demo version of a plugin that is available, Grain Surgery (http://www.retouchpro.com/reviews/grainsurgery/index.html), which Doug reviewed recently.

While GS took out ~95% of the texture, some slight horizontal moire remained, so I duplicated the GS layer and applied standard Photoshop Smart Blur. Added a layer mask to the Smart Blur layer to attempt to recapture a little detail around the eye from the GS layer. You may be able to see the feint colored crosshatch droppings rendered by the GS demo.

Note: This was a real fast whack (took about 3 minutes) to illustrate the possibilities. Didn't attempt to tweek GS parameters or touchup defects, fine tune w/curves, etc.

This image used is the one Mig originally posted for comparison purposes.

OK, I feel really stupid. I downloaded the Grain Surgery demo and installed it. When I look in the filters menu in PS6, it doesn't show up. When I double click on the Grain Surgery icon, Photoshop opens, but still no Grain Surgery filter is present.

I'm using a Mac (since 1984) and have never had this problem installing software. What am I doing wrong?

Margaret

Margaret:

I'm shooting in the dark here since I'm a Win/Photoshop 5.5 guy. ;)

When I installed the demo under Windows, I had a similar problem to the one you describe.

When I can I like to keep all plugin files (plugin, readme, license, prefs, etc.) in individual folders within Plug-ins, but that didn't work with GS (for the demo, anyway). In the Windows environment it appears that the plugin must not be buried in a folder somewhere; it only worked when it was installed in the standard Photoshop plug-ins folder. Does this make sense?

For example I believe PS6 has the option of specifying multiple Plug-in folders. If so and you installed GS into, say "Test Plug-ins" vs. [whatever the standard Photoshop folder is for the Mac], that may be the problem...

Or, perhaps, within your [whatever the standard Photoshop folder is for the Mac] you created a separate folder like I did, e.g., Grain Surgery and installed the plug-in there. If so, that might be the problem.

If either of these are true, try dragging the plugin to [whatever the standard Photoshop folder is for the Mac] or delete all the GS files and reinstall.

Hope this gives you some troubleshooting ideas.

~Danny~

Hi Danny, following your advice, I moved the grain surgery items to the plug-ins folder and then "Grain Surgery" showed up on the filters menu but it was greyed out. I tried moving the whole folder and leaving the items inside the folder - same result.

Next is re-boot see if that works. Too bad there is no readme file or anything with it.

I'll let you know if I get it to work,

Thanks a lot

Margaret

Jim, if you can, post the pic in this thread so we can see what it looks like. Keep it under 100k. There's native Photoshop filters that can usually do a good job.

Danny, interesting what grain surgery can do - looks good. But is there green in her eye now? I was wondering how that got there.

MIg

Hey, Mig:

Yes... There's a little green (Good Eyes!).

I used the Grain Surgery "demo" which places multi-colored cross-hatching in the image until you pay for it!. Smart Blur zapped most of the color, but there was a little left over.

Danny

Thanks to all for your help. I am fairly new to Adobe but have been involved in photography for a number of years. I did a bit of work by blurring with gaussian blur and then sharpening with unshsrp mask. Didn't look too bad but I need to get it to 5 x 7.

P.S. Excellent site.

Sorry. This is probably more viewable.

Looks like you got any grain texture out. Don't know how bad it was before but your finished product looks real good Jim.
DJ

Don't know if you posted the pic as a "here it is... help me lose a little more grain" or your final result, which looks very good.

I took your pic, enlarged it to 7x7 and ran a combination of native Photoshop filters** on it to lose some grain / texture that was magnified when I resized it.

** Filters used:
- Smart blur
- Added a little noise
- Median
- Dust & scratches
- A touch of unsharp mask
- Curves to bring out some contrast

Very cute baby...

Danny
I posted it as the original scan. I am still working on resolution. By trying to keep the file under 100k for posting, I obviously did not get a very good rendition. What should my resolution be to get a file similar to yours.

Jim

Hi Jim...

Resolution is gonna depend on final destination of the image: If you're going to send it via e-mail or post on the web, 72 ppi is pretty standard. Higher doesn't buy you much, if any, additional quality + makes theimage file bigger = longer to download.

If you intend to print at 5x7, I personally go for a minimum of 300 ppi for photo prints, but you'll get varying opinions all over the board on that number.

Does this help?

Originally posted by DannyRaphael
Hi Jim...

Resolution is gonna depend on final destination of the image: If you're going to send it via e-mail or post on the web, 72 ppi is pretty standard. Higher doesn't buy you much, if any, additional quality + makes theimage file bigger = longer to download.

If you intend to print at 5x7, I personally go for a minimum of 300 ppi for photo prints, but you'll get varying opinions all over the board on that number.

Does this help?

The way I understood it is that the file size is dependent of the number of pixels in the image. For example, a 1200 X 1500 pixel image will make the same file size whether it is 72 ppi or 300 ppi. Am I wrong about this?

Ed

Hi Ed:

What you stated is correct. My wording wasn't very good.

Although I've fallen asleep many times trying to absorb lengthly tutorials and chapters on deciphering / understanding the differences between "monitor resolution," "printer resolution" and file "resolution," I still get these scrambled most of the time.

Where's a good margarita when you really need one? :dizzy:

What I was attempting to convey is that if a 5"x7" image is to be displayed on the web or sent by e-mail, a file resolution of 72 ppi is sufficient. A higher resolution makes the file bigger, as you stated, but does not yield better image quality on a monitor.

If I intend to print a 5"x7" to 8"x10" image on my more-or-less standard HP ink-jet printer, I've found that a fiile resolution in the range of 200-300 PPI generates high (enough) quality results. Less than that (on my printer, anyway) yields noticeable pixelation for prints in that size range.

Danny