Re: Procedure for improving legibility of old records?

tim sewell wrote:
>
> Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving the
> legibility of old records?
>
> Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most
> photoediting software", I have been unable to find any specific "how-to"
> type advice.
>
> I have tried Photoshop, Paintshop pro etc, but I am really working on the
> basis of pure guesswork and trial-and-error. Basically, I "fiddle about"
> with brightness, contrast, threshold setting, curves etc, without much of a
> clue. And I know there must be a better way of doing things than that!

I don't have the answer that you're looking for as that's what I do also
including negative image. What works varies according to the image. It's
worth emphasizing that these programs can't bring out detail that simply
isn't there to begin with.

> I am fortunate enough to have access to a FHC which has a film scanner
> installed, so that we can copy direct to CD-Rom. But even then, there are
> areas of varying intensity where I can just read a name on the film, but not
> on the scanned record.

Something is terribly wrong with the scan in that case. You could take a
look at the image information for those images on CD (Paintshop, click
View-Image Information). For display purposes at original size, those
may be set at 72dpi which doesn't capture enough detail.

> The sort of problem that puzzles me most is where
> varying fading of the original ink has caused faint portions within a
> record. eg one of my ancestors was Ann Tait. The "A" is clearly legible,
> the "nn" that follows it can only just be read.

I find that scanning a document is a more effective way to make out
characters on a document than a magnifying glass, but the resolution
needs to be there. I might scan something like that at 600dpi or better
to check results. If the scan is not as legible as the image in the
viewer and there is no resolution option when going to CD, then I would
opt to print the document and scan it yourself at a better density.

> None of the reference books that I have seen so far are much help at all,
> being aimed at photographers, and mostly colour photographers at that. If
> no such references are accessible, what do other listers do for their own
> records?
>
> I would welcome any/all advice from other listers.

Just remember that if it isn't there to begin with, no magic can bring
it out. :-)

Bob
.

Relevant Pages

  • Procedure for improving legibility of old records?
    ... Do any listers know of good references which offer guidance on improving the ... Other than the generalised comment that "legibility can be improved by most ... and mostly colour photographers at that. ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: Obfuscated MUMPS
    ... This is an "animated" BCD-clock for your terminal. ... No literals, legibility or ... (All references are "N-ed", no K's or ^'s, so a D Q^Q is safe, but do not alter ... I'm just responding because I want you to know it's not that writing ...
    (comp.lang.mumps)
  • Obfuscated MUMPS
    ... This is an "animated" BCD-clock for your terminal. ... No literals, legibility or ... (All references are "N-ed", no K's or ^'s, so a D Q^Q is safe, but do not alter ... void if read ...
    (comp.lang.mumps)