View Single Post
Old 05-25-2016, 12:18 AM   #10
DMcCunney
New York Editor
DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DMcCunney's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,384
Karma: 16540415
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: PalmTX, Pocket eDGe, Alcatel Fierce 4, RCA Viking Pro 10, Nexus 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrannyGrump View Post
I see the cross-hatching almost always when the images are "photogravure" (see attached pic), but not on line-art. Of course, Google scans have other issues as well --- they seem to LOVE to frequently use some sort of softening-blur on illustrations that often makes them look smeared. Those will look ok on a small reader display, but are awful to work with for clean-up and enhancement.
And thinking about it, I've seen similar issues with scans of work originally produced as printed material using halftone screens. If the original image scan was high res to capture fine detail, it looks fine if you can get a copy of the original scan and view it in high res. When attempts are made to produce a smaller version for faster download and viewing on a small screen, the moire effects you talk about occur.

I suspect the original scans of the work you are trying to use were just fine, but those aren't what you can access.
______
Dennis
DMcCunney is offline   Reply With Quote