This post should be deleted as misleading gibberish. There is not one single dot anywhere inside of any pixel-based images. Because if there were, you could very easily answer the basic question: how many pixels are in a dot? DPI is nothing more than a text-based "tag" added to pixel based images, for historical reasons, like the equally useless human appendix. It can have any whole-number value greater than zero. It impacts the image just the same as the file name, as is: none. It's just a text value, unrelated to any technical aspect of the image.

Consider your exposure settings and shooting technique. Being able to add your own artificial light to static subjects, you're now better positioned to shoot at smaller apertures and / or closer to the base ISO of your camera.

Consider your final red tulip, using ISO-500 and 1/500 sec on the shutter. Why not a lower ISO, say all the way down to ISO-100? Are you working in a windy condition, where even 1/250 sec is too slow? All these examples show seemingly unnecessarily fast shutters and unnecessarily higher ISOs. All with the resulting digital grain of an unneeded higher ISO.

While I’m sure this was meant as a joke, such things are available.

Tiffen sells a monochrome viewing filter, which is not put on the camera, but rather used as a monocle by the photographer so they can get an idea of what the scene looks like without colors.

This was sold years ago by Kodak as a Wratten 90 filter.

As I recall it is a very dark green. I tried one years ago and found it very difficult to see thru.

B&H sells these. You might be interested in reading the reviews.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330726-REG/Tiffen_BWVF_1_Black_and_White.html

Should you want these as eyeglasses, buy two and find an optometrist who can fit them into a frame.

I do a good deal of traveling and take a good deal of photos for my artwork. A problem that I experience is that sometimes it's just impossible to remember precisely where the photo was taken and as I do architectural subjects that's a real inconvenience. I use my Olympus camera that's about 6-years old and I was considering a new Olympus camera since I have some very effective lenses for my purposes. But...Olympus doesn't seem to offer any camera that would permit me to use the lenses I have AND give metadata of a photo's location. Is there an easy method of addressing this issue that I'm not aware of other than taking cumbersome notes or also using my iPhone constantly to also photo a spot that WOULD log the location? Thanks for any help that might address this without my having to settle for a new camera that would be unnecessarily costly and not give me the use of my Olympus lenses.

Has anyone anyone ever successfully written updates into a JPEG on the original SD / CF card via their digital editor?

Given the images date to 2019, why are you still keeping them on the original SD cards? Why are you editing them in 2023, without having copied them into your primary and back-up storage?

BTW - why are you shooting in Adobe RGB for JPEGs? Have you considered the advice presented earlier in: What happens when you set your camera to Adobe RGB?

Using a scanner is your best bet for restoration. This will keep prints flat, there will be no issues with glossy prints and you can make any repair or correction in density, contrast, and saturation in post-processing.


If you prefer to use your camera, especially with prints that won't fit in the scanner, my preferred setup is using cross-polarization, that is polarization filters on your lights and a CPL filter on the lens. This is the prescribed method used by professional restoration artists, archives, and museums.

The polarization filters for the lights are made of acetate and are available from various sources including Rosco. The ones I use are mounted on cardboard with index marks to insure that are placed in the correct direction (orientation) over the lights. You can use electronic flash, incandescent, or LED light sources in standard reflectors.

I set up a horizontal "copy stand" or easel and place each ligh at 45 degrees. The camera is kept parallel to the prints. Whe the CPL filter is rotated, at one point, all unwanted reflections will be eliminated and contrast and color saturation will be retained or maximized.

I take a meter reading at each corner of the copy surface and move the lights incrementally until all the readigs match. It tasks a bit of setup time but once you establish things the restof the job can move rapidly.

See attached diagrams for the lighting setup. The diagram shows my old setup with a large format camera. Nowadas I use a digital camera fitted with a macro lens. There is a shot of the acetate polarizing filter. The copy stand is not necessary, an easel ledge on the wall or magnetic copy board will do the job.
Once you have a good digital file, you can make corrections and repairs in post-processing.

As others have mentioned, it is important to secure the best possible image of the original in the event that actual direct cleaning is employed which, in some cases, can exacerbate the stains or damage.

As for actual remedies, fluids, and baths for treating stains, mold mildew, or stand to result of insufficient fixing or washing. Well, it's complicated and I am no expert on this aspect of restoration. There are all kinds of myths, witches' brews, and folklore. The archivists I have worked for, first determine the cause of the stains and treat them specifically. Sometimes even plain water will worsen reactivate and spread certain molds. Beaches and acids are generally big no-nos. I have seen Borax and Sodium Bicarbonate in use. Isopropyl Alcohol will remove greasy stains. Usually, a small dab of whatever solution is thought to be effective is applied to a small area at the edge of the print to make sure it will not harm the emulsion.

Certain mildews will dry up and kind of flake off of allows to dry in the sun or with gentle forced air for a hair dryer.

I agree. And don't use a Pixel 3A to do the taking. Mount the picture securely on a wall out of direct sunlight or glare, us a (good) camera on a tripod, and take several shots at different apertures. Wider aperture is best, but not knowing which camera you will use, wide open may not be best. Make sure you center the camera lens and picture so you have no vertical or horizontal distortion. Get as close as possible to the picture without losing any of the picture itself. Then use a good editor to clean, sharpen, crop any remaining backing, and de-blemish the picture. Print the results, and you have the same picture, but in much better quality. Mold gone, bad backing gone, blemishes gone, everything lovely. Mount as you desire. Good luck.