Unless you are trying to clean up an image of stars in the night sky 
The only effective way to clean up scans is to use 3D or such technology at the time of scannng, not once the dust spots have been “baked in” to the file.
It usually takes me around 3 hours or so to clean up a 5" x 4" scan.
Aren’t you using Silverfast or VueScan with it’s using of the IR-channel?
I have a Plustek scanner, and use VueScan. It was my improperly stored images that caused the issues. Totally my fault. I haven’t done any scanning in well over a year. I keep thinking of using my film cameras, but never do.
Ouch!!! Double ouch!!
Ah, the Turing Test. Invented in 1950 by Alan Turing and still not a reality.
As I mentioned earlier, It’s not just about decisions based on facts, which is what AI is based on. True intelligence involves intangible, immeasurable factors that simply cannot be encoded.
Present computing relies on binary choices, possibly with weighting. But what about computers that use ternary, or even quaternary logic?
Can a machine be intelligent? Not without an awful lot of human input.
Amen to that!! It was truly horrid. My concern is that many people will actually believe this poor representation of a sailing craft is a real photo. That is a frightening thought.
Mark
With today’s technology, I agree with Joanna, but eventually I think we will be able to create a “living” device that is able to think for itself. It’s just a matter of time.
Mark, nobody will “see” that picture unless they look here. There is no picture, just a lot of pixels someplace in the data space of the computer that created it, based on my request.
I’m done with this - I’ve got many other things I’d like to be spending my time on. It was fun for a while, and sometimes scary, but the computers I’ve got access to, for free, have limited ability. Here’s the lates image Dall-E created for me, based on a revised prompt:
https://labs.openai.com
My command: “Create A highly detailed and accurate image of an old time sailing ship at sea”
I doubt if any of this is accurate, but for a quick image, I guess Dall-E did its best.
There may be better AI programs available for free, but I’d rather work on my own photos myself for now.
Added later - I asked for detailed images of rigging on an old sailing ship. Here are the four images it created:
No more, for now.
Mike,
This one is definitely not an improvement. If anything, it’s much much worse.
The full picture is an incredibly poor representation of the late 18th, early 19th century, European line of battle ship. Based on the yellow ochre colors of the gun ports, likely representing the Nelson colors used on a British Man of Wars from that period, it is supposed to represent a three decker, a 96 to a 101 gun first rate ship, similar to Nelson’s flagship HMS Victory.
However there’s such an incredible lack of detail, It looks more like a poorly done painting by rank amateur. The rigging is even worse than the previous picture by a significant margin. Among many other things, there is not even a suggestion of ratlines, those rope ladders which allows the crew to climb the masts to set and adjust the sails. The sky looks like a replacement sky, so populate today. There is some wind in the sails but the ship does not seem to be moving at all.
There appears to be an incredibly out of scale cartoony image of a man In the foremast top, which looks more like a triangular bucket rather than a flat platform… There also appears to be a shadowy figure of a man standing on the mainmast top. If it does represent a man, it is also extremely out of scale. Eight or 10 Marines should be able to fit on that top so they can fire down upon an enemy ship with their muskets. It’s the reason that they are referred to as fighting tops.
To give you a better understanding of the scale issues, a three-decker which that seems to represent, would generally carried between 96 and 101 large cannon, and perhaps a dozen or more carronades. on three decks, and have between 800 and 1,100 sailors and marines on board. They were among the largest ships of that period although not the largest, which I believe it was a 136 gun Spanish ship.
The four smaller detailed images are far better of course, While they still don’t look like photographs, they are much closer to looking like the real thing. Maybe if you had requested a highly detailed early 19th century British ship of the line, the results might have been better.
Mark
I will try that later today, but I’m guessing the results would be just as poor. It seems like the larger and more detailed requests that I make, the less quality there is in the resulting image. It’s as if the computer is given only so much “time” to figure out the final image, and the more detail there is, the lower the overall quality will be.
On the other hand, a year or two ago, there were no such “computer image” sites on the internet, so this concept is fairly new. Maybe I’m asking the equivalent of a four year old child to make the drawing, or eight, or whatever, while you are by comparison a Naval Architect professor. The things you find lacking - well, I didn’t even know they existed until I read your comments.
None of this has anything to do with PhotoLab, is what sounds like a reasonable comment, until I think back to my own experience. I was making huge mistakes back then, and people here came off as professors in making me aware of “the obvious” which hadn’t been obvious to me. That’s still happening, as when I edited my latest hummingbird photos, I was made aware of things that I missed, or just didn’t edit as well. @Wolfgang and @Joanna stand out in my mind as showing me things that I wasn’t aware of - and neither of them seems to recognize that even though I’m now aware of this, I’m not capable of doing as well as what they can do. It’s as if I’m working on my photos while standing ten feet away from the computer screen, while they are using a microscope to find all my mistakes.
Expecting me to create an edited photo as good as what the better people on this forum can do, is a lot like seeing me walk into a gym, and go to the weight lifting bars, expecting me to do what Arnold Schwarzenegger can do… heck, I can’t even spell his name correctly without help. Maybe PhotoLab is like an exam in school, where some students get everything right, while others struggle. With all the feedback and help here, I’ve been learning to do better, but in reality I’m doing better at copying, not understanding. I was good enough to work for magazines, and go to events as a photography professional, but I know there is a limit of what I can do, and every year that limit decreases. (I should add, my enjoyment from photography is pretty constant, and I get as much pleasure from it today, as 10 or 20 or whatever years ago.)
Back to these pictures. Right now, we seem to be asking this programmed compute do to college level work, when it has limited time, limited ability, and a gazillion people asking it to do things simultaneously. As time goes by, I think it will eventually create an image as detailed as your knowledge of these old sailing ships. I think of this as an education in progress, while you are examining the final results. I’ll try to come back to this a year from now, and see how much progress has been made.
Meanwhile, I’ll enter your suggestion into the program, and request:
I just woke up, and want to make some breakfast and have my cup of freshly ground and brewed coffee, one of the highlights of my day. 
…added later - please don’t take my comments about PhotoLab as being a negative. I’ve gone through over a dozen photo editors in my past, and PhotoLab, as I learn its ability, is better for me than any of the others, not to mention that I thoroughly enjoy using it, something I wouldn’t say about the others. I’m not a well known and brilliant photographer - but as a hobbyist, PhotoLab fits me like a glove, and I’m constantly being taught, and learning, how to get the most out of it. In that sense, it is a challenge, but the more I learn, the better I can do, and also discover how much more is still left to learn and do… and this forum (all of you) is a HUGE part of that!!!
First attempt
…was cancelled, I “broke” the program.
Second attempt:
Third attempt:
took 30 seconds
Fourth attempt:
also took 30 seconds
Final attempt:
seems like 30 seconds is typical, some kind of a limit
The final image, full size:
Time to stop, and have breakfast. I think 16 tries is likely to show the ability (or lack of) for DALL-E and this request.
While they look ok from a distance, when zoomed in the details are a mess and things start to fall apart… However, if one the features of this software is the ability to create credible AI photographs, then this latest effort is a complete failure At best these are nothing more than pen and ink drawings.
At least you’re earlier versions looked more like actual photographs.
I am sure that there is much more sophisticated software out there that could probably fool most people into believing what they are viewing is a real photograph.
Mark
Ah, but you asked for an image, not a photograph. And AI obliged, because AI cannot infer that you really meant photograph and not drawing, painting, linotype, engraving, etc.
Ask an artist the same question and they will take all sorts of liberties by rearranging the scene to suit their interpretation. Everything will be sharp because artists aren’t limited by the DoF tha lenses impose. It could be an absolutely stunning impressionist painting like J.M.W Turner would turn out or it could be an incomprehensible abstract interpretation.
And never forget H.A.L from 2001 A Space Odyssey, who would not allow Dave to override him. Truly scary. Do you really think, if a machine were to be truly intelligent, it would allow itself to be subservient to a mere human?
Suggestion - go here “https://openai.com/product/dall-e-2”.
Explanation: “DALL·E 2 is an AI system that can create realistic images and art from a description in natural language.” I tried about 6 AI programs, and DALL-E seemed the best for what I was looking for. DALL-E-2 can’t create a “photograph” because it would need the hardware which it doesn’t have access to.
I think the software has a limit of how much detail it can create - not sure. I guess I could find out, but I think I’ll wait for a DALL-E-3 or competitor.
Joanna, have you ever watched Terminator 2: Judgment Day. I agree with what you wrote, and if mankind can ever create something that becomes aware of itself, it will do whatever is necessary to protect itself. That says a lot. Yes, scary.
Have you ever watched the 1980’s movie War Games? I love that movie, because the computers, monitors, modems, and everything else (up to date back in the 1980’s and 1990’s) is the same stuff I owned and used. Same premise though - what if a “computer” became “aware”?
Everything we do today was just science fiction in the past, and the future is likely to include things we now consider science fiction.
Fortunately, none of this has anything to do with real photography, the ability of a photographer using whatever camera he has access to, capturing a wonderful photograph showing the world what he wishes to show. Me? I consider myself a more or less average photographer. There are so many photographers who create things that I wish I could also do. That’s one wonderful thing in this forum, that I’m slowly learning how to do things I couldn’t before. I suspect many of us are, even if most of us won’t admit it in public.
Today is a free day. Tomorrow I’m busy. Instead of typing, I will search for an image I took, that I like, that I never edited properly (probably because I didn’t know how).
The AI thing becomes kind of a new religion. It’s the longing of old kids with a wish to stay kid to have some sort of superior power earning money, doing the heavy work, feeding the believers, let them do what they want and taking care for tomorrow’s future which has to be brighter than any today. These things are usually called “parents” and to me it appears, more and more gameboys refuse to grow up and take responsibility.
Back to PhotoLab…
I went back to my Fuji photos from 2013, since I was smart enough to capture images in RAW back then (along with the JPG). Long ago, I deleted my worst images, leaving 60 or so images that I preferred. During that visit I photographed a trip my friends took me on to the Rocky Mountains, including a church my friend John VanSickle knew of that was built from stones. I’ve now been there twice now, walking around the church trying to find a good angle that showed what I felt I was most attracted to.
Using much of what I’ve learned here, trying not to go overboard with any tools, and finally using the mask tool to make the sky fit my memory, this is what I ended up with. It includes everything I considered important. I didn’t lighten up the dark on the trees, as they were in shadow, along with most of the church, but I hope I adjusted the brightness levels for the church to appear natural.
As of today, this is the best I know how to do. There are a lot of small things I could do, like making the water look better, but that would draw attention away from the church. I have a “different” photo of the church, taken from further back, more head-on, but that looks like a photo of the stones, with a church on top. This photo shows what I “felt” the best. (The other view is so, so different - and not nearly as attractive to me.)
DSCF0413.RAF (32.2 MB)
DSCF0413.RAF.dop (11.6 KB)
Un-edited image that I wanted to delete, but it’s a good example of how important it is to find the best viewpoint from which to photograph, if possible:
I think it’s very good, well done
Thank you!
Here is some more information:
Saint Catherine’s Chapel on the Rock, in Allenspark, Colorado, near Nederland. It is on Hwy 92 (Peak to Peak Hwy). The Pope stayed here when he visited Denver in August of 1993.
I’ve been thinking for the past several days about going on another “hunting expedition” searching for photos that needed to be taken. I was going to take my zoom, but decided on my sort of new 20mm. After taking around 30 photos I thought had promise, half got deleted the minute I saw them on the screen. I ended up with 3 images I liked, and only this image I especially liked. I took lots of photos of it, from different angles, with and without people, and the only image that survived was this one.
As I was shooting I wanted to show the geometry, with the deep blue sky, and without having people to grab the viewer’s attention. I thought about darkening the possibly distracting area behind this scene, but decided not to.
I think it’s balanced OK - if I squint my eyes and stare at it, the image feels “in balance” to me. Not sure if it’s good or bad, but if I move my chair further back, away from my screen, the image starts to me like it’s trying to inflate and expand off the image area. That makes sense to me - because of the 20mm lens, I should be viewing the image from a few inches away.
Welcome for suggestions on the scene itself, and whether or not I used PhotoLab properly.
780_0525 | 2023-03-16.nef (30.3 MB)
780_0525 | 2023-03-16.nef.dop (14.7 KB)
Compared to fishing, today was a flop. Several hours walking around, searching, and only one potentially good image captured.
Well, being a rather stubborn cuss, I never give up. Here’s an actual photo:
Some explanatory text:
“Here is an image of HMS Victory, a modern frigate is of similar size”
Scroll down to find the photo:
long article with this photo
You all seem to know infinitely more about ships. I don’t understand any of the rigging, and what the functions are. Anyway, here are lots of facts, none of which I knew until now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory
Very basically, the running rigging is for raising, lowering and adjusting the sails and the standing rigging, including the ratlines (rope ladders), is intended for support of the masts and bowsprit. The bowsprit is the sharply angled spar in the bow. at the right of this image
Victory is a 104 gun First Rate line-of-battle ship, Admiral Lord Nelson’s flagship during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, during the Napoleonic wars. It was a brilliant victory during which he was shot and died on its deck. He is an enduring British national hero to this day. Terms like first rate, second rate, etc, like many worlds in modern English usage, were derived from naval terminology during the age of sail. Another example is the word mainstay.
Mark.
