Prescreening request/processing advice

[nashwa]

Can someone please have a look at this picture, I have tried uploading it countless times and it keeps getting rejected for different reasons, it seems to be one step forward and two steps backwards, where every time I solve one problem another arises, it also keeps saying too soft even though I've maxed the sharpness in lightroom, (My camera isn't the best but still), and it keeps saying information incorrect, I can't autofill because this would be the first picture of this plane. I'm near certain the info is right, so some guidance on what I'm getting wrong would also be nice.

[AKH]

Not a screener, but it would help if you can share what reasons were given for the reject?
At the first impression it looks ok, I might have give some more contrast and it could be slightly higher in frame. However, it looks like you possibly merged the layers in the wrong way? The edges of the aircraft look oversharpened.
If you need the correct sereal...it shall be 20-5937, a MC-130J.

[dlowwa]

Can someone please have a look at this picture, I have tried uploading it countless times and it keeps getting rejected for different reasons, it seems to be one step forward and two steps backwards, where every time I solve one problem another arises, it also keeps saying too soft even though I've maxed the sharpness in lightroom, (My camera isn't the best but still), and it keeps saying information incorrect, I can't autofill because this would be the first picture of this plane. I'm near certain the info is right, so some guidance on what I'm getting wrong would also be nice.

Somewhat soft/flat contrast, but should be fixable with a better edit. Can't comment on info unless I know how you uploaded it.

[nashwa]

Somewhat soft/flat contrast, but should be fixable with a better edit. Can't comment on info unless I know how you uploaded it.

MC-130J, reg. 20-5937, c/n. 382-5937, the c/n is the only thing I'm not fully sold on, but literally every other MC-130J is 382-last 4 digits of the reg, so I'm pretty sure it's right.

[nashwa]

Not a screener, but it would help if you can share what reasons were given for the reject?
At the first impression it looks ok, I might have give some more contrast and it could be slightly higher in frame. However, it looks like you possibly merged the layers in the wrong way? The edges of the aircraft look oversharpened.
If you need the correct sereal...it shall be 20-5937, a MC-130J.

• Over Processed / Bad postprocessing
• Undersharpened (Soft)
• JPG compression artefacts
• Categories wrong or missing

I don't get the compression, I saved it in the highest quality, so it shouldn't be compressed in any way, I don't really understand the wrong categories, maybe it isn't information but the fact i labelled it as a hot photo, but theres no other pictures of 20-5937 on jp so it counts as hot right?

[AKH]

The c/n is correct according to some databases.
Category: Genre must be military and the C-130 needs category CARGO aircraft
The others shall be fixable, as Dana said, but you shall start again from the original; editing the rejected photo may not solve it.

[nashwa]

The c/n is correct according to some databases.
Category: Genre must be military and the C-130 needs category CARGO aircraft
The others shall be fixable, as Dana said, but you shall start again from the original; editing the rejected photo may not solve it.

ok thanks for help i will try and re-edit in the morning.

[dlowwa]

[/LIST]I don't get the compression, I saved it in the highest quality, so it shouldn't be compressed in any way, I don't really understand the wrong categories, maybe it isn't information but the fact i labelled it as a hot photo, but theres no other pictures of 20-5937 on jp so it counts as hot right?

So it was in fact NOT rejected for bad info, only categories. Since you have yet to provide a link to the rejected image I can only guess that you may not have selected Cargo.

[nashwa]

I lost my micro-fiber cloth a couple weeks back and reaped the consequences, with a lot of my photos very dusty, however, although multiple photos had multiple dust spots when I looked on the website's "check for dust tool", when I opened lightroom to remove them and used the dust spot visualizer, I literally couldn't see them at all, so is there some way I can edit the photo myself to make the spots visible? Or can someone please recommend another tool I can use to get rid of them?

many thanks,
nashwa

[Stanley JH]

Not a screener, but if you want to enhance the visible dust spots I will just set the Dehaze to maximum (+100) just to check spots and enable the check for spots tool to the maximum slider.

Cheers,
Stanley

[derizu]

I lost my micro-fiber cloth a couple weeks back and reaped the consequences, with a lot of my photos very dusty, however, although multiple photos had multiple dust spots when I looked on the website's "check for dust tool", when I opened lightroom to remove them and used the dust spot visualizer, I literally couldn't see them at all, so is there some way I can edit the photo myself to make the spots visible? Or can someone please recommend another tool I can use to get rid of them?

many thanks,
nashwa

If you have Photoshop, there is an Equalize filter under the adjustments tab. You would need to make a duplicate layer of the image, use one to visualize the spots, and the underlying image to remove the spots - then delete the equalized one once finished. If you only have Lightroom, like Stanley said, dehaze should work well - you could also play around with clarity and texture to visualize them more.