# Spot healing efficiencies



## Chuck Holst (Jan 14, 2016)

I've scanned a number of old B&W negs using my Nikon Coolscan V, and the scans have gobs of dust specs and other flaws that need to be removed. My question is, which uses more resources when there are a large number of dust spots close together: healing one spot at a time using small selection circles or healing several spots at a time using a large selection circle or brush? In other words, is number of operations more important or is area affected more important in slowing down spot healing operations?

Chuck


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 14, 2016)

Chuck Holst said:


> I've scanned a number of old B&W negs using my Nikon Coolscan V, and the scans have gobs of dust specs and other flaws that need to be removed. My question is, which uses more resources when there are a large number of dust spots close together: healing one spot at a time using small selection circles or healing several spots at a time using a large selection circle or brush? In other words, is number of operations more important or is area affected more important in slowing down spot healing operations?
> 
> Chuck



Chuck,

Have you cleaned your negs before scanning?  What scanning software are you using?

Phil


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 14, 2016)

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the number of operations is more important than the size of the spot.


----------



## Chuck Holst (Jan 14, 2016)

PhilBurton said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Have you cleaned your negs before scanning?  What scanning software are you using?
> 
> Phil



As well as I can. These negs are half a century old, and I think much if not most of the dust specs are imbedded in the emulsion. There are also scrapes and chemical stains that show up. I think I used Vuescan for these scans, but I believe the software is irrelevant. The Coolscan is an LED scanner, which picks up the slightest imperfections (the grain is clearly defined). Yet I can't use infrared-based cleaning during the scan because the silver in the emulsion blocks the infrared. So I'm stuck with manual cleanup. I'm just trying to find the best method to delay clogging up the system as I edit.

It could be worse. Back in the good old days, I had to touch up the prints with a fine brush and several shades of watercolors.

Chuck


----------



## robosolo (Jan 15, 2016)

Chuck Holst said:


> I've scanned a number of old B&W negs using my Nikon Coolscan V, and the scans have gobs of dust specs and other flaws that need to be removed. My question is, which uses more resources when there are a large number of dust spots close together: healing one spot at a time using small selection circles or healing several spots at a time using a large selection circle or brush? In other words, is number of operations more important or is area affected more important in slowing down spot healing operations?
> 
> Chuck


You shouldn't be using LR to remove so many spots. No only is it awkward (as you've discovered), if you do too many you run the risk of slowing down LR - using either tool. Removing so many dust spots and flaws is far easier and faster to accomplish in Photoshop.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 15, 2016)

robosolo said:


> You shouldn't be using LR to remove so many spots. No only is it awkward (as you've discovered), if you do too many you run the risk of slowing down LR - using either tool. Removing so many dust spots and flaws is far easier and faster to accomplish in Photoshop.



I agree. The advantage of using spot healing in Lightroom is that you can preserve the raw file that way. Scans aren't raw files to begin with, so it doesn't make much sense to want to 'non-destructively' remove the spots. Photoshop is not only much faster, it also has a lot more content-aware options.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 15, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> I agree. The advantage of using spot healing in Lightroom is that you can preserve the raw file that way. Scans aren't raw files to begin with, so it doesn't make much sense to want to 'non-destructively' remove the spots. Photoshop is not only much faster, it also has a lot more content-aware options.



I'd share those views. In Photoshop I'd recommend working on a copy layer(s) so you have some of the advantages of working non-destructively.

John


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 15, 2016)

I wouldn't even bother with a copy layer. Working non-destructively for color and tone corrections has the advantage that you can always change your mind later, in which case you do not have to add corrections on top of corrections, but you can start again. I can't imagine that I would ever change my mind about the removal of a scratch or a dust spot...


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 15, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> I wouldn't even bother with a copy layer. Working non-destructively for color and tone corrections has the advantage that you can always change your mind later, in which case you do not have to add corrections on top of corrections, but you can start again. I can't imagine that I would ever change my mind about the removal of a scratch or a dust spot...



Well, I would always do so. It's not a matter of changing one's mind, but of subsequently noticing mistakes you might have made, and secondly deciding or learning how you might have done something better. That applies more to scratches and also to healing areas such as over-exposed patches.


----------



## Chuck Holst (Jan 15, 2016)

Thanks for all the comments. Looks like I need to learn Photoshop, too.

Chuck


----------



## robosolo (Jan 16, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> I agree. The advantage of using spot healing in Lightroom is that you can preserve the raw file that way. Scans aren't raw files to begin with, so it doesn't make much sense to want to 'non-destructively' remove the spots. Photoshop is not only much faster, it also has a lot more content-aware options.



An interesting aside regarding whether to use LR or PS for spot healing: I recently upgraded my i7 system with 32-GB of RAM and moved all my photos, programs and LR folders onto Samsung Pro SSDs. Now I can do a great many spot removals in LR without the program slowing down to a crawl. I do like to use LR though, since it's non-destructive and retains my images as much smaller RAW files compared to huge Tiffs or PSDs from PS. Only when I'm removing a lot of dust and scratches from scanned negatives will I use PS - especially since they're Tiffs anyway.


----------

