I cleaned up a lot of JPEG artefacting in the restored version. Luckily, the original photo has a soft focus, so I could do that with minimal loss of information. Look between the man's legs (and, yes, I realise that sounds dirty, but you know what I mean). Of course, it's not as good as a new scan from the original would be - there's still some signs of it at full resolution - but the chance of getting that scan is almost nil, and I was able to salvage most of the really obviously artefacted areas by careful restoration.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist and Replace with restored essentially per Nauticashades and like him/her I can't tell the restoration differences really either but I'll take your word for it and it does look better darker.
Cat-five -
talk09:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I cleaned up a lot of JPEG artefacting in the restored version. Luckily, the original photo has a soft focus, so I could do that with minimal loss of information. Look between the man's legs (and, yes, I realise that sounds dirty, but you know what I mean). Of course, it's not as good as a new scan from the original would be - there's still some signs of it at full resolution - but the chance of getting that scan is almost nil, and I was able to salvage most of the really obviously artefacted areas by careful restoration.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist and Replace with restored essentially per Nauticashades and like him/her I can't tell the restoration differences really either but I'll take your word for it and it does look better darker.
Cat-five -
talk09:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)reply