Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1730 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1736 times:
It is worth adding Equalise to your workflow as a late step.
Go to Image, adjustments, equalise and they will glare at you. There are several above the aircraft and they will need to be cloned out.
I wonder if these should automatically be a cause for rejection when they are invisible until you do the equalise function as with yours here, but I am not a screener !
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1198 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1728 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 6): I wonder if these should automatically be a cause for rejection when they are invisible until you do the equalise function
Thank you for your words and helps!
I still do not understand if the spots are not visible as long as they only could be seen by Equalise function, much likely they will not be seen by all viewers. I do not believe each viewer will browse every picture by Equalise function.
Of course, if the spots are visible, that will not be the case I am talking about here.
First, I have never said my monitor is bad. Please check out my thread about my monitor. Secondly, in that thread, I just want to know how to make the jaggies more noticeable. Dust spot and jaggies are different topics.
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8): Do you think the screener gave it a baddirty rejection on the oft chance that, once viewed with an equalized layer, there would be a dust spot?
Let me say again. I did not see that dust spot, OK? Let me use equalise function to fix it. Even by using equalise function, the spot is not so obvious. Anyway, I have already fixed that. And I did not think the whole thing in the way you asked. If I saw that spot, I would fix it, for sure. I am not a guy who takes his own risk to the acceptance ratio. For every photo, I want to make it perfect, before uploading it. I came here and posted my thread just for help, instead of challenging screeners. Aggressive words do not help on this issue.
KLGAviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1665 times:
I, along with many others, don't like sarcasm. It makes the administration look bad.
I couldn't see the spot until I equalized it. And, still, it is barely visible. Why are photos rejected for tiny spots? As shown above, the "general public" does not care whether or not there is a near-invisible imperfection in the sky...
There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1656 times:
I am sorry Bubbles but I will not let this go. You are trying to be passive aggressive which is just plain silly.
First example, you quote me as saying "your monitor is bad" which is not what I said, is it? The actual quote would be "Last week you started a thread wondering if your monitor is bad." See the difference.
The first part of your post reads "I think there must be something wrong with my monitor which I'm using to edit my photos" so I don't know why it would be unreasonable to assume that your monitor is giving you trouble.
I came here and posted my thread just for help, instead of challenging screeners
Are you sure about that? A screener helped you and told you what the problem was, your reply was
However, even if you have told me that, I still could not find that spot
Is that not a challenge?
It is not okay to start a thread and then not agree with the answers you get and when someone calls you out you act like a victim.
Neither did Royal... You were wondering it, and by reading your other thread it probably isn't fantastic. Obviously, if you don't see jaggies the way we do, so your monitor is probably giving a soft picture. That's could also be the reason why you don't see the dirt spots.
I much appreciate what Tim helped on me as I have said "thank you" to Tim.
Let me say it frankly I still could not find that spot without equalise function. And, I do want to fix this baddirty rejection. As my typing speed is not fast, when I replied to Tim, Eduard posted his suggestion and told me to use equlise function, and I followed his suggestion to find the spot around where Tim told me.
Just like what just now Chris said, "still, it is barely visible" even by using equalise. In spite of that, I have accepted this rejection and fixed the problem, finally uploaded it again.
As I have said in other threads many times, English is not my native language. If my response to Tim is a challenge, I will change my wording in the future. Personally, I was not trying to or intended to challenge screeners.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1198 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1641 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting IL76 (Reply 12): Most people like to make them less noticable...
I do want to make jaggies more noticeable. My monitor may be giving soft pictures as you said. Still I want to know how to make it more visible if the spot problem shares the same root cause with jaggies problem. After that, I could make my photos have less problems.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3077 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1636 times:
I feel I have to pitch in here, as Hongyin is a valued A.net colleague, and I know how much he cares about these kind of things.
There has been a lot of bad feeling around in the Forum over recent days and I think this is a great shame. Many important and sensible issues are being lost in people's hostile behaviour and responses. Please let's not repeat those problems here.
Hongyin showed me this photo before uploading and, though I would not claim to have the eyes of Gary Watt, I reckon I am not bad at spotting dust spots now with the naked eye. But I didn't see this one. In fact, once Hongyin posted this thread and the link I looked again and I still didn't see it - even though I was looking for it. Now I have established where it is using the 'Equalise' function I can see it without the aid of that.
The reality is that there is something about some kinds of dust spot that means you don't see them - even when you are looking - unless you have a trained eye. Clearly even my 'half-trained' eye was not good enough initially. This is not sloppiness or lack of skill, but I reckon is related to experience. I would argue this one is not easy to see at all, until you see it. I think it is understandable for people sometimes to feel aggrieved when they don't see the problem, and it must be said this is the kind of spot that even when seen using 'equalise' is not glaringly obvious in the way others are.
I am reminded of studying optical illusions in undergraduate psychology. You are shown figures with embedded images in them and some see them, some don't. Even when you describe to some exactly what to look for, and trace out the shape, they still don't see it. I reckon something similar is going on in these type of situations. I think this kind of spot can merge with the grain of the sky in the photo and your eye can completely miss it - until you see it, and then you can't stop seeing it.
All it takes is some patience and helpful support from those with experience to guide those with less experience. Also, I do feel strongly that it is not appropriate to make criticisms of people for their use of language when they are clearly working extremely hard to make themselves understood in, what is for them, a foreign language. In such circumstances taking what is said 'literally', without giving some latitude for this language issue, is far from sympathetic.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Quoting KLGAviation (Reply 16): Many of you are not helping as your should... I just see people trying to come back with a reply more witty than the last.
..and this reply of yours is helpful how?
Quoting KLGAviation (Reply 10): I, along with many others, don't like sarcasm. It makes the administration look bad.
LOL... you make it seem like some type of freakin' corporation for Crying out Loud..
I, along with many others, prefer people say what they mean, and with as few words as possible. You're not going to hurt anyone's feelings. If you have got something to say, SAY IT, don't beat around the bush trying to be some kind of "Can't we all get along, I love you man..." Internet GEEK.
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1575 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 15): I am not bad at spotting dust spots now with the naked eye. But I didn't see this one. In fact, once Hongyin posted this thread and the link I looked again and I still didn't see it - even though I was looking for it. Now I have established where it is using the 'Equalise' function I can see it without the aid of that
I agree with Paul. I tried my best to find the dust spot without the aid of equalize and stuggled to find it, actually I couldn't. I have a new Dell CRT 19" so I rekon my monitor is quite good. Its clibrated well and I had even the luxuray of borrowing the Camera Club's advanced calibration monitor that you slap onto the screen and calibrate it that way. I still couldn't fing the spot. Even when I brought it into PS it was bearly there, well there was a possible 3 spots.
So what monitors are you screeners using that you can see all these things and what calibration method are you using.
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 5): Thanks, Eduard! I am not challenging you. It is just out of my curiosity - if you do not mind, may I ask a question?
Does screener use Equalise function every time to examine each photo to find out dust spots, or just use naked-eye to review the photo?
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8): So what. The dirt is visible on my monitor, hence baddirty.
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 11): You are trying to be passive aggressive which is just plain silly.
No, you are Royal. You constantly give out to us for being polite and respectfull to screeners, was that type of answer apropriate?
To be honest Royal, Hoygin just asked a question and your reply was to tell him to p*$£ off.
Quote: So what
You may also need to understand that English is not Hoygin's first language. He just asked a question.