Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Posted (9 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1730 times:
I got this one rejected for bad centered and it's been a while and I need a refresher- I used the building on the left side as my guide and it appeared to be level to me. My assumption is that the fuel tanks are not straight, but the building is- so in such an instance, what is the right thing to do?
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1676 times:
Sorry, one more-
I got this one rejected for BADDIRTY and i'm not sure if its the plane that is dirty or what i'm not seeing, so that I can fix whatever it is and resubmit it. Thanks for any assistance.
Bigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4075 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
I'm a little confused. You explain as though you felt the shot was crooked, but your badcenter rejction refers to where the plane is in the photo. From what I can see, it looks a little low in the frame.
I also recommend a CW rotation about 0.00000000000023 to the right.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
Sorry guys, the UAL CRJ was "badcameraangle" -I'm still not sure what I did wrong. And Phil, I did adjust it .00000whatever but i'm not sure if that's what's wrong. It's been a while since i've uploaded so maybe i'm getting rusty but I need to know what the heck i'm doing wrong- and what is dirty about that northwest aside from the airplane being dirty? what am I not seeing???
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
For the baddirty photo, try taking it into Photoshop and putting the contrast way up - this will reveal any dust spots which may be hard to see otherwise. After cancelling the contrast change you can very easily clone out the spots.
As for the CRJ, it is quite noticeably leaning left. Try using the measure tool and grid to level it.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
Philster, check out the building on the left side, that boy is straight up.
Eric, I checked that northwest for the sensor dust indeed, saw none- not sure what happened here. Phil on the northwest smog, maybe the jet exhaust, but that day in ATL was a dream- 60 degrees and deep blue skies- 0 smog.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1645 times:
Why should I put the contrast up, I dont see any noticeable dust spots- should I be checking every photo for unnoticeable dust spots "in case" there may be some hidden ones? please tell me that's not what we've come to here- I know that can't be.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1634 times:
I dont mind appealing, believe me, but I want to learn- I want to know what the screener was thinking when he rejected- what he saw, so that we can all learn not to make the same mistake and have to go through the appeal process. Maybe there is something the screener saw that we are all not seeing- there's only one way to find out, hopefully he can help us understand.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1636 times:
What dust spots did you find? I found what might be dust spots after Equalizing and Inverting the image but they were all but gone when I returned the image to normal state. The only way I saw them in normal state was because I knew where to look and even then they were very minute.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
Why should I put the contrast up, I dont see any noticeable dust spots
I said the same thing until I recently got a baddirty rejection for a photo which seemed to have no dust spots whatsoever. Spots are easy to miss, though, and when I bumped the contrast up (you can also use 'equalize,' as Phil and Eric mentioned) I found what would have been the reason behind the rejection.
I had a more detailed look at your photo and with the contrast around +30, there are a few spots visible above the fuselage. The most pronounced one is directly above the left tip of the horizontal stabilizer. Without the added contrast I can just barely make out one or two of them, but they're probably the culprits nonetheless...
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1606 times:
The day I start examining photos for what may be under the surface at +30 gauge is the day I sell my cameras and give it all up. That is sheer madness. Photo looks good, but let me do several under the surface inspections to be sure that it's ok underneath the initial surface. Where is my gun, I need to end it all...
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1604 times:
Here, have a look at this. I hope you don't mind me having played around with your photo a bit, Joe, but I increased the contrast to +30 and attempted to pinpoint a few spots. My guess is that inside the black circles are indeed dust spots, albeit very faints ones for which a rejection should have been borderline, I think...
Edit: I totally understand what you mean, Joe, it's going a bit too far when you have to examine the photo this carefully to find spots. However I do think I located a couple of them and if you just clone them out, the photo should be good to reupload.
Sukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 371 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
Didnt screen either but the first is badangle, those fuel tanks are leaning to the left.
The second in places the sky is strange there is a band above the trees that looks blotchy and in other places too, there is a dark "spot" above the left tailplane and just up front the central beacon on the fues.
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5472 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
I do see a spot, right where Paul described. But I had to take that into PS and hit the contrast way up. I think that band above the trees he was talking about was smog? That CRJ shot (what a pain in the arse spot), I did a CW rotation at .5 and the building near the tail/engine looks level now.
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
What sometimes helps me, and what I used to identify the spot above the left tailplane was if you open your image in a separate window. Then, if possible with the whole picture in view, move the whole window around a bit...just back and forth, or in small circles. Then, while doing that, you can usually quite easily identify the spots, as they will be moving along with the picture. Hope that made sense!
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1488 times:
Of course a screener is using a monitor which may have a higher contrast setting than yours. Do screeners screen on LCDs? If so these can be very good at "enhancing" dust spots which would be all but invisible on a CRT.
It does seem over the top to need to correct problems you can't even see, but unfortunately until the world uses the same monitors and settings, this is something everyone publishing to the web needs to make allowances for.