How can I remove dust spots from a scanned image without flattening its texture?

Start by treating each spot as a candidate for repair, not automatically as dust. Zoom in and look at its shape and context: ask whether it interrupts nearby texture or could belong to the subject, such as a small highlight, grain, or mark in the original. If you are unsure, leave it alone until you can compare with the physical original or another scan.

For a confirmed or likely small defect, a healing tool is often a suitable first choice. In GIMP, Heal uses sampled image data while taking the destination area’s surrounding pixels into account; the manual contrasts this with Clone, which simply copies. It describes Heal as useful for small defects and recommends a brush sized to the defect. [S1]

Make a copy of the scan before editing. Work on the copy, use a brush only large enough to cover the spot, and sample from nearby texture that resembles the area you are repairing. Avoid broad strokes across detailed features. Small, isolated corrections are easier to inspect and reverse than a large retouch.

Choose a sample area close enough to share the same kind of texture and lighting, but not so close that it includes the defect or a feature you do not want copied. For example, beside a tiny spot on a plain wall, nearby wall texture may be a better source than a patch from a face or a different part of the image. Near an eye, hairline, lettering, or another distinctive edge, be especially cautious: a repair that crosses the edge can alter detail that is not dust.

Use this simple decision rule:

1. If the mark is clearly separate from important detail and small, try one carefully placed healing edit.
2. If it overlaps a meaningful feature or you cannot tell what it is, pause rather than guessing.
3. If the surrounding texture changes quickly, use a smaller repair area or leave the mark for a more careful review.

These are cautious editing choices, not a guarantee that a healing tool will preserve the original texture. The tool cannot tell whether a mark is dust or genuine image detail, and the manual does not guarantee a natural result. [S1]

Use two views, because they answer different questions. At close zoom, check whether the repair left a smudge, repeated-looking texture, a softened edge, or a visible patch. Then return to normal viewing size and ask whether the image still reads naturally and whether the cleanup attracts attention. The GIMP manual advises checking for artifacts at close zoom and judging whether the image looks natural at normal viewing size. [S1]

If a repair looks daubed, undo it and try a smaller, better-placed correction rather than clicking repeatedly over the same area. The manual warns that repeated clicks can risk a daubed result. [S1] Compare with your untouched copy as you work; if the change makes real texture less convincing, keep the original mark or try a more restrained edit.

Use this pass for each suspected spot:

1. Inspect: Zoom in and decide whether the mark is likely unwanted dust or possibly real image detail.
2. Protect: Save an untouched copy and work on a separate version.
3. Prepare: Choose a healing tool, a brush sized to the defect, and a nearby sample with similar texture.
4. Repair: Make a restrained correction; avoid repeated clicks or strokes across important edges.
5. Review close up: Look for smears, patches, softened detail, or repeated-looking texture.
6. Review normally: Check that the image still looks natural as a whole.
7. Keep or undo: If uncertain or less natural, compare with the untouched copy and leave the mark rather than forcing a repair.

The tool behavior described here is specific to the cited GIMP manual. Other image editors may use different tool names or controls, so check the instructions for your editor; the inspection and two-view review steps remain useful as a general editing routine.