Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you!

[wrxflyer]

Originally Posted by akerosid

What more can I do other than get the camera cleaned? If the spots were actually visible on the rejected photo, I could understand, but they aren't,at least not to me.

????
Are you sure?
I can see the dust-spots on the original photo immediately,and I am on my rubbish monitor at work, right now

[PMN]

Originally Posted by akerosid

I really don't want to e messing about with the cloning stamp for hours on end. This really is a pain.

Hours on end? Getting rid of three or four dust spots should take seconds, no longer. Why should we accept your images with dust spots just because you can't be bothered to get rid of them yet reject everyone else's?

Sorry to sound harsh, but this lazy approach actually bugs me more than having dust in the first place. Thousands of other photographers clone/heal spots out, and unfortunately you have to do the same if you want images to be accepted. If you don't like dust I suggest using a compact or bridge camera!

[akerosid]

OK, whoa there, just let's backtrack a moment!

I was not trying to be lazy; I was not suggesting that an exception should be made just for me either (don't know where that came from!!!); I'm just saying that if dust spots can only b e noticed by altering the photo in the way the DL 767 shot above has been altered - something that no viewer is likely to do, why do we get worked up about them?

I took the precautions that I should have taken; I got my camera cleaned specifically for this trip.

OK, I can certainly do the clone stamping thing for the rejected photos, but could I least suggest that if "dust spots" are being used as a reason for rejection, you would point out where they are!

I don't mean to sound lazy (didn't think I was); if I have to do this, of course I will (it certainly won't take just "seconds"!), but it just seems that if a dust spot is not visible on the photo, we should not get overly upset about them - for anyone, not just me. A little leeway/discretion should be exercised in this regard.

[Rtyrpics]

Originally Posted by akerosid

OK, whoa there, just let's backtrack a moment!

I was not trying to be lazy; I was not suggesting that an exception should be made just for me either (don't know where that came from!!!); I'm just saying that if dust spots can only b e noticed by altering the photo in the way the DL 767 shot above has been altered - something that no viewer is likely to do, why do we get worked up about them?

I took the precautions that I should have taken; I got my camera cleaned specifically for this trip.

OK, I can certainly do the clone stamping thing for the rejected photos, but could I least suggest that if "dust spots" are being used as a reason for rejection, you would point out where they are!

I don't mean to sound lazy (didn't think I was); if I have to do this, of course I will (it certainly won't take just "seconds"!), but it just seems that if a dust spot is not visible on the photo, we should not get overly upset about them - for anyone, not just me. A little leeway/discretion should be exercised in this regard.

Since having your camera cleaned you have not changed lenses, lens caps or opened acess to the mirror/censor mechanisms at any point?

I always check for dust at the start of editing and one last check after all other editing processes it works.
Ryan

[seahawk]

Dust check is so quick.

Copy layer - equalize copy layer - activate orignal layer - use clone stamp or healing brush on original layer

[Rtyrpics]

Originally Posted by seahawk

Dust check is so quick.

Copy layer - equalize copy layer - activate orignal layer - use clone stamp or healing brush on original layer

Make it even quicker record it as an action.

[akerosid]

Originally Posted by Rtyrpics

Since having your camera cleaned you have not changed lenses, lens caps or opened acess to the mirror/censor mechanisms at any point?

I always check for dust at the start of editing and one last check after all other editing processes it works.
Ryan

Actually, I stopped changing lens a good while ago, to stop this happening; haven't changed it in a long time.

I am sorry if I sounded a little hacked off and I didn't mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but I was just a little frustrated. I did all I could to stop this happening and I am just sick to death of having a superb spotting weekend wrecked by dust spots. No one's fault; it's just "s**t happens".

Back to technical matters! When I do the dust spot removal, it's slightly different from the method you give above - and it comes from instructions in the programme. I use the spot healing brush and by following the instructions in the programme, the photo is increased to full size and I just do the needful, sweeping over the offending area and hope for the best. (In fact "hoping for the best" figures quite strongly in my approach to Photoshop!!)

Thanks anyway for your advice.

[PMN]

John, no worries if you didn't intend to come across as you kind of did. I know these things are annoying but our upload guidelines are quite clear on this and we have to apply them right across the board. Visible dust is a reason to reject simply because it's usually extremely easy to sort out, and it literally does take seconds as long as you don't have hundreds of spots (my basic method is to select the healing brush tool, equalise the image, check for spots, select a place right next to the spot, place the tool over the spot, unequalise using Undo and click, then repeat for other spots or keep clicking if the sky is uniformly blue). I've done LGW and LHR trips in the last month, cleaned my cameras before both trips and still had dust on the sensor by the end of it, so whether your camera is clean or not it can still happen. Immensely annoying, but it's just one of those things we as DSLR users have to accept.

Ryan, more dust actually gets into your camera in normal use with the lens on than when changing lenses. Your lens in essence is an air pump, and every time you zoom out (especially with bigger lenses) it pumps air and the crap within it directly into your mirror box. When I have my 50-500 on my 350D and zoom out I can actually feel air blowing out of the memory card door!

[Rtyrpics]

Originally Posted by Mengelaus

Hi, this photo was rejected for dark and too much ot too little contrast. Can you please tell me what should I do to correct it? The pic was made pretty late in the day. If I mark the night/dusk category it could be accepted? Because I can't lighten it more.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2958783

Thank you for your help, Andrei.

Hiya, I am sorry its taken me a while to respond however here goes.
I have opened the photo in Photoshop and have had a look at the histogram. We can see that there is a big gap between the pure black point and were we have recorded pixels. Denoting a lack of shadows.

The histogram also shows us alot of material is on the brighter edge of the histogram. We can see this in the sky particularly.

I have moved the black arrow in levels to '29' this boosts the contrast in the shadows.

The bright background is overpowering the darker aircraft. However by masking out the sky and mountain thing we can selectivly adjust the brightness in the aircraft.

I haave curves to the following settings
Input: 104
Output: 152

I have then using curves again to adjust the contrast of the plane alone a fraction.

With the sky i have used the following settings
Input: 215
Output: 202

The detail has been recovered.

This is not the neatest job in the world but it is here to prove it could be saved.

Hope that helps.
Ryan

[PMN]

Ryan, top marks for effort but that image is still nowhere near acceptable. It's showing massive artefacts around the aircraft and it's way overprocessed. The approach of isolating the aircraft and adjusting that/the frame around it simply isn't acceptable and would be an instant manipulation rejection for me as it goes way beyond what's considered 'standard' editing.

Unfortunately the problem with this image is that the background is brighter than the aircraft; essentially it's backlit, so nothing you do will improve the contrast. Looking at the histogram the vast chunk of the information is in the last two stops (and is slightly overexposed already) and there isn't much in the darker stops so there's nothing to really correct. A personal collection image I think unfortunately.

A quick note as well, your colour space is wrong. It should be set to sRGB, not Adobe RGB.

[brianw999]

Originally Posted by akerosid

.....Back to technical matters! When I do the dust spot removal, it's slightly different from the method you give above - and it comes from instructions in the programme. I use the spot healing brush and by following the instructions in the programme, the photo is increased to full size and I just do the needful, sweeping over the offending area and hope for the best. (In fact "hoping for the best" figures quite strongly in my approach to Photoshop!!)

Thanks anyway for your advice.

Firstly, don't "sweep" the healing brush. This causes marks on the image that can be seen as a different colour on a sky.

I see that you use Photoshop Elements. I'm not familiar with this programme so I don't know if all of what follows can be done, but this is what I do in Photoshop CS3.....

I have created an "action set" in CS3.

Basically, when I hit Ctrl+F2 the image has....
1. A background layer created.
2. That layer is equalised.
3. It is brought to the front with the original layer not visible.

I can now see any spots, and you would be amazed how many there can be that you don't see in the normal image. Select the spot heal tool and set the disc to be just bigger than the spots. Hold the disc over the spot and left click once. DON'T sweep the disc, just hold it over the spot. Do this for every spot but be careful with spots close to an edge as the heal tool may stamp part of the adjoining detail onto the image. If this happens then use the clone tool after this action set has been used.
Repeat this for all spots.

I now hit Shift+F2 which causes the following to happen...
1. The equalised background layer is unequalised.
2. That layer is deleted.
3. The original image remains, but with spots removed.

The image now shows as a normal image but with all the spots removed.

This screenshot might explain better...




Alternatively, go here( http://www.jid.me.uk/workflow/index.html )for an earlier method of using layers and the heal tool to remove dust spots. This may well be more suited to Elements.

[Derice]

This image was rejected: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2965086. Reason: - Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots.
Screener's Comments: Near the nosewheel

I've again looked at this image in PS (equalized it) but really cant see anything that looks like a dust spot near the nosewheel.

Can anyone help me out on this one?

[Rtyrpics]

Derice,
I have ringed the dust spots I have found three.
There are several techniques for spotting them noted above.
Hope it helps.
Ryan

[Derice]

Thanks!
Will look into the tips as well!

-edit- I will also help if I open the correct image on my computer.
Too many HV pictures.

[thetiz]

Hi dear friends,
I've had one rejection about this picture:



Reason: bad info.

I have filled the airport as "LIPC" and the reg of one of the MB339 (the leader). It's not a terminal, it's a military airport.

Thank you in advance for your kind help
Fabrizio Berni - Italy

[magic48]

Fabrizio, I left a comment in the screening email that was sent to you.

This photo needs to be uploaded as a ramp shot. Please type in the Airport letter code "LIPC" in both the Registration and Airport fields and then select "Ramp" from the Airline dropdown menu. Make sure to select Military genre as well since this is a military air base.

[thetiz]

Originally Posted by magic48

Fabrizio, I left a comment in the screening email that was sent to you.

This photo needs to be uploaded as a ramp shot. Please type in the Airport letter code "LIPC" in both the Registration and Airport fields and then select "Ramp" from the Airline dropdown menu. Make sure to select Military genre as well since this is a military air base.

Opps....
Sorry, my mistake!
I hope this could be helpful also for the other users!
Excuse me again, Gianluca!
Fabrizio

[Derice]

Originally Posted by Derice

The weird thing is, in CS4 I use the "Save for Web & Devices" option and selected to incluse all metadata. When I view the image on my system the EXIF is present.
When uploading I also check "Include EXIF" (defaulted in my profile").
But somehow it's removed...

Anyone have any idea about this?

[LX-A343]

Can you upload one of your photos which you upload here, to another server (imageshack, ...)? That way we could have a look into it. Best would be the ssame photo uploaded to imageshack and here, i.e. with the EXIF infos as you say and after "whatever happens" in JP.

[Zach Liepa]

Hello,

I got this shot rejected for bad composition, can someone explain what is actually wrong with it.

Thanks, Zach

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2969039