Dust spotting scans

[Brian Ellis]

I spot everything I'm going to save - not necessarily print, just save on DVD and external hard drive - at 100%. I used to spot only keep those photographs that I thought were worthy of printing. But some years ago I changed, now I keep any photograph that I like even though it may never be printed. Most of my work is digital these days so spotting isn't anywhere near as time-consuming as it is with film.

[biedron]

I still prefer spotting with PS rather than LR, which I find to be more of a pain than helpful.

This may be a well known LR tip, but perhaps someone could benefit: When spotting in LR, zoom into whatever ratio you want (I usually use 1:1), and place the zoom box in the upper left-hand corner. Do your dust spotting in that tiny section. When done, still zoomed in, hit the page-down key. That will move the zoom box down vertically, by the precise height of the zoom box. Now do your spotting in that section. Repeat, repeat... when you get to the bottom, the next page-gown will move back up to the top, but shifted over by the width of the zoom box. Eventually you will end up at the lower right-hand corner and you are done. Page-up goes in the opposite direction in case you want to go back to the previous section. This has made my spotting work in LR2 and LR3 a lot easier for me; I haven't upgraded yet to LR4, but I assume it will work the same way there.

Bob

[Bruce Watson]

I have always done it at 100% of the maximum archived file size (360dpi, 30x40 inches), but that is brutal when you have allot of dust and a bit pointless when you know you are never going to print that large.

What do you guys do?

Just exactly what you described.

I had a mess once, some screwup in processing that I'm too embarrassed to describe. But I managed to gunk up an entire trip's worth of film, close to 100 sheets. It was, shall we say, a learning experience.

What I found is that you don't have to treat all dust the same. Dust in clear skies is the worst -- gotta do that at 100% or see it in the final print. But dust in amongst a field of grasses is a completely different animal.

I do have one print from that trip that I enlarged to 125 x 100 cm (roughly 50 x 40 inches) that had a fair amount of sky and water in it. Took me the better part of a day to do the dust spotting. Nice headache, that one. But a big beautiful print that's right now hanging in my bedroom where I see it first thing every morning. Yes, I really like that print.

And... since that time my processing has become obsessively clean, to the point of using steam distilled water for everything, and all chemistry one shot, including fixer. If it all makes a noticeable difference, I do it. Got my spotting time for a 5x4 scanned at 11x enlargement down well under 30 minutes, and almost all that time is spent searching for dust -- not fixing it.

You can, of course, cut down on the work just by scanning to a smaller level of enlargement. If "you know you are never going to print that large". Tough prediction to make, that. At least for me.

[timparkin]

You can, of course, cut down on the work just by scanning to a smaller level of enlargement. If "you know you are never going to print that large". Tough prediction to make, that. At least for me.

And that would mean spotting twice - which is why I try to scan at high res for all images that warrant it (i.e. I don't bother for f/32 or more images as the detail isn't really there to compensate for working on 2Gb files)!!

[timparkin]

You can, of course, cut down on the work just by scanning to a smaller level of enlargement. If "you know you are never going to print that large". Tough prediction to make, that. At least for me.

And that would mean spotting twice - which is why I try to scan at high res for all images that warrant it (i.e. I don't bother for f/32 or more images as the detail isn't really there to compensate for working on 2Gb files)!!

[Bill Koechling]

Kirk - We are in the thick of it right now. I've changed stock agencies recently and have scanned all images (several hundred at this point) to 7000 pixels @ 300 ppi for the new agency. These files are not as large as yours but my wife (a very high-skilled retoucher) and I have taken turns at doing the same thing. We also do this at 100%. It's brutal but as Brian Wilson says, "That's Why God Made the Radio."

[Kirk Gittings]

I should have said that I have rarely printed that large-twice in my adult career.I have one yearly museum show that has been asking me to put in one large print every year at 30x40, but frankly I think few of my images work at that size. Who knows what the future will bring? Hence why I try to cover all potentialities.

[bob carnie]

I have always hand spotted my prints as I know you have Kirk. You can still do it if one spot is missed.

At 100% I believe is overkill... What I do is go one or two mags up from final print size and spot ... Basically spotting is all about camouflage , so I tend to spot the way I did in the past.
For clients I will hire a youngster with better vision and patience than me and make my client pay them to spot.

I should have said that I have rarely printed that large-twice in my adult career.I have one yearly museum show that has been asking me to put in one large print every year at 30x40, but frankly I think few of my images work at that size. Who knows what the future will bring? Hence why I try to cover all potentialities.

[MisterPrinter]

I'm spotting with Photoshop 7.01 ( I know, I'm a Dinosaur ), I find it simple and fast. In your opinion are the spotting / healing / filter tools in later versions worth the cost ?

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison ? I did have the latest evaluation copy, but unfortunately, being in the middle of a complicated house move, I neglected to do the comparison and now my trial has expired.

Any spotting / dust removal tips / links appreciated.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes I am using CS5 IMO the Spot healing tool is better than earlier versions and the Content Aware Fill solves problem that nothing else can as well.