Victoria at the shed (Page 2): If this isn't the original it was taken at the same time with the same camera. Ektacrome slide film. Knock your self out... I'd like to see what can be...

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

If this isn't the original it was taken at the same time with the same camera. Ektacrome slide film. Knock your self out... I'd like to see what can be done.

(Download)

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Here's the other.. I use an Epson Perfection 1200U photo flatbed scanner with a slide/ negative attachment. Best I can do on this old baby is 1200 dpi.

(Download)

RogStrix Loc: UK

Here's my attempts at the original posted downloads:

two b/w, one colour....

b/w 1; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bvLx0SxxTP9qkx27Ka9-A1cQVEqOjN8X/view?usp=sharing

Colour 1; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s1qxah1lYKTDAX1DpCOBLD_0zRLLBcmn/view?usp=sharing

b/w 2; https://drive.google.com/file/d/19H_avVko0pEg3He5DY7hognBsO7nilpc/view?usp=sharing

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Harry,

The size of your images didn't change but the color was slightly different. If I was some sort of forensic photo expert looking at those two images I would swear they were processed differently. It doesn't make sense, seeing as how it's obviously the same session, but maybe you changed film and the rolls were processed at different times, or the temps got out of whack or the slides themselves have aged differently. At any rate, these really need to be scanned at 4000+ DPI. The more information, you have the easier it will be to play with them.

OK, so here is how I worked with them. I'm sure everyone has a method for this, but when I don't have a good white reference in the image I'll zoom in on something I think I can interpret the color of. In this case, I was looking at the model's skin. I max out saturation and then play with the temp and tint sliders. I go back and forth alternating between the two and leaving each slider where my guide color looks the most correct. After two or three iterations it will be as good as it will get and of course, that's a personal preference. Then I put the saturation back to where the image looks believable.

On this image I also pulled down the saturation of magenta and purple a tad. Bumped up DeHaze a tad to help the wood grain of the barn, and selectively desaturated a couple of items that had really bad chromatic aberrations.

The end result still sucks, but not as bad

On a completely unrelated note, the model is simply stunning.

(Download)

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Here is the second image - I must confess that I spent a lot less time on it. The interesting thing is that you can't directly paste the settings from the first into the second and get the same results. Now that I've thought about the color shift a bit more I'd guess they were taken near sunset or sunrise and the light was changing rapidly.

(Download)

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Sunrise

InfiniteISO wrote:

Here is the second image - I must confess that I spent a lot less time on it. The interesting thing is that you can't directly paste the settings from the first into the second and get the same results. Now that I've thought about the color shift a bit more I'd guess they were taken near sunset or sunrise and the light was changing rapidly.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Ya, $000 dpi out of my equipment range and at 76 I'm not going to put that kind of money into a hobby. Looking at the original slides the barn wood does have a purplish tint to it.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Yup, your definitely look better.

InfiniteISO wrote:

Here is the second image - I must confess that I spent a lot less time on it. The interesting thing is that you can't directly paste the settings from the first into the second and get the same results. Now that I've thought about the color shift a bit more I'd guess they were taken near sunset or sunrise and the light was changing rapidly.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

What program did you use? I've never gotten into a program that will allow all those adjustments.

InfiniteISO wrote:

Harry, br br The size of your images didn't chang... (show quote)

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

4000 dpi

DIRTY HARRY wrote:

Ya, $000 dpi out of my equipment range and at 76 I'm not going to put that kind of money into a hobby. Looking at the original slides the barn wood does have a purplish tint to it.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

DIRTY HARRY wrote:

What program did you use? I've never gotten into a program that will allow all those adjustments.

Harry,

I have a light room / photoshop subscription. These edits were done with light room. It costs me 10 dollars a month I think. I use the classic version that stores the images locally. This year I've taken and processed about 20,000 images, so for me, the subscription makes sense.

As for your slides, you could probably go through them and pick out a hundred or so that you wanted professionally scanned and get it done pretty reasonably, for less than 50 cents a piece. 20 years back, when the first consumer grade slide scanners were first becoming available, a couple friends of mine bought one together. This was back when you had to have an interface card that went into a desktop computer. They put the scanner at one of their houses and got together once every couple of weeks to look at and scan slides. It took them a couple of years and a lot of bourbon to get through their collections, but they stayed out of their wives hair and everyone was happy. When they finished they sold it to me but I never got around to scanning my father's slides, which is what I wanted it for. It's in a box in my basement, but any computer the card would mount in is in the junkyard. Flatbed scanners do a lousy job scanning slides. You'd be better off getting a really good screen or painting a smooth wall with projection paint (gray) and taking photographs of the projection if you still have a side projector. Keep the lens of the camera and projector as close as possible.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

scanned at 4000+ DPI..... what does that correspond to in megapixel?

InfiniteISO wrote:

Harry, br br The size of your images didn't chang... (show quote)

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

DIRTY HARRY wrote:

scanned at 4000+ DPI..... what does that correspond to in megapixel?

A 35 mm slide is roughly 1.4 inches wide and 1 inch tall, so about 5600 x 4000 pixels so about 22 megapixels. Your images were almost that big, but I suspect you increased their size somewhere. At 1200 dpi they should have been around 1680 x 1200, yours were 4487 x 3638 but they looked like 1200 dpi scans. You can digitally blow up a 2 x 2 pixel "image" but no matter how big you go you still have 4 blocks of color.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

So why would a 4000 dpi scan help me?

InfiniteISO wrote:

A 35 mm slide is roughly 1.4 inches wide and 1 inch tall, so about 5600 x 4000 pixels so about 22 megapixels. Your images were almost that big, but I suspect you increased their size somewhere. At 1200 dpi they should have been around 1680 x 1200, yours were 4487 x 3638 but they looked like 1200 dpi scans. You can digitally blow up a 2 x 2 pixel "image" but no matter how big you go you still have 4 blocks of color.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Actually this was a 126 format slide. I worked for Argus Camera Repair in Dexter Michigan the summer of my Senior year at Michigan and got a hold of one of their higher end 12 cameras. It did a pretty good job, the price was right (self financed student), and it gave me a camera to put slide film in one camera and b&w in another.

InfiniteISO wrote:

A 35 mm slide is roughly 1.4 inches wide and 1 inch tall, so about 5600 x 4000 pixels so about 22 megapixels. Your images were almost that big, but I suspect you increased their size somewhere. At 1200 dpi they should have been around 1680 x 1200, yours were 4487 x 3638 but they looked like 1200 dpi scans. You can digitally blow up a 2 x 2 pixel "image" but no matter how big you go you still have 4 blocks of color.