Digital manipulation,surprised until......

[Greg Wilson]

Just recieved a manipulation rejection, http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=868549
Must admit I was a touch cranky until I equalised in PS..................


If screeners can confirm the "blotches" was in fact the manipulation seen,(and I'm sure it was),and no I have no idea as to the reason.

The original (resized to 1024)


And original (resized to 800) and equalized


I have seen something similar on a photo when sharpening with layers and failing to merge (more so at high ISO),but this has me stumped.This photo only needed the usual crop/size,touch of levels and USM.
It must have been somewhere in PS and I usually do a final equalize (obviously not this time) before saving.
Any ideas ..........

[AJ]

Greg, the rejected image appears to have had a noise reducing program decimate the detail.

[Greg Wilson]

.................. appears to have had a noise reducing program decimate the detail.

I do not have noise reducing software installed on my computer.
I was hoping that a screener involved in the rejection could have confirmed that what I see is the "manipulation" and not something else,but not to worry.

[Hawaiian717]

I also just had an image rejected for undersharpened (I get that a lot, both sites are rather overzealous about this IMO, but whatever) and for digital manipulation:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=871307

The only manipulations I've applied to it are my usual post processing based on Eric Smith's guide, along with removing a couple of sensor dust spots. I'm not going to appeal the rejection because I figure the undersharpened would kill it anyway, but I would like to know on what basis these digital manipulation decisions are being made.

[Greg Wilson]

Well,well,well.........looks familiar.
Equalized/resized to 800



Re edit and upload again (maybe a tweak of levels/curves)......nice photo.

[Hawaiian717]

Your post doesn't really help me... as you can probably tell from my postcount, I'm not a regular reader of the JP forums. I saw a couple of the other threads noting about issues with neatimage... I don't have it, thus don't use it.

[SWA733Captain]

Looks like your working through quite a bit of sensor dust, might want to clean that off.

[Greg Wilson]

Your post doesn't really help me..............

It was an observation for you to work on.
It was an issue similar to my first post.
I do not use noise reducing software either,as stated in post#3,and no suggestion is made that you did.
There is a problem.Equalize your original upload file and see if it appears as the rejected one.

Looks like your working through quite a bit of sensor dust, might want to clean that off.

So where is the sensor dust in my original picture shown above in post #1,it is even equalized for you.

[MaxPower]

So where is the sensor dust in my original picture shown above in post #1,it is even equalized for you.

I believe he's talking about Muellers Ted Aircraft where you can see the hole in the equalized image on upper right corner. You cant miss seeing it.

[Greg Wilson]

It is not sensor dirt the photo has the same "blotch" issues as mine ......Picture No1 post No 1.
This does not appear on my uploaded file and would be interesting to see David's upload file.
It may be time to re read this thread in full to put things in the correct prospective

[SWA733Captain]

In both of the actually. There are still a one or two visible in your "original" right above the tail. Just stating it might be a good idea to wipe that shit off, doesn't make any difference to me on my prespective.

[Greg Wilson]

Scott... we are talking of two different things.
That is because the photo you are looking at is the original(yes still with dust spots) straight from camera (and noted in the caption above the picture) It was put in the original post as a reference,and noted as such.

[Hawaiian717]

Here's the photo that was uploaded, equalized and scaled to 800x:



Yeah, sensor dust is an issue. I brought the camera in in February (after the LAX trip, as I noticed more spots starting to appear earlier in processing this batch) for a cleaning, the guy worked on it for quite a while and said it was really bad. He'd clean it out, then go out and test it and more would fall onto the sensor. He suggested I send it to Canon to have them clean it.

It does bug me how both sites will apply filters to images and reject based on that, and not what can actually be seen in the photo as uploaded.

[SWA733Captain]

Still besides the point I was commenting on.

[AJ]

I do not have noise reducing software installed on my computer.
I was hoping that a screener involved in the rejection could have confirmed that what I see is the "manipulation" and not something else,but not to worry.

I was a screener involved.