Dust on subject, not on sensor

[John Richmond]

Is it worth submitting images where there is obvious dust on the subject (or surroundings)?  For example on a dirty streetsign or around and in a reflection on still water.  Cleaning it up would take more time than would be worthwhile - but submitting uncleaned images could well fall foul of QC who might interpret the visible specks as sensor dust.  Especially if they were outwith the focal plane and blurred.

 

Any opinions?

[Ed Rooney]

I'm in New York City; find me a place on the city streets without dust and dirt and clutter. I think of my street images as Romantic Realism, that is I pick up candy wrappers and cigarette butts in Photoshop that call too much attention to themselves. I don't go for perfection, however. That would be and look unreal. The scene I usually give up on is the window of a Peking Duck restaurant in Chinatown. There are just too many duck-fat spots to deal with. Remember it's the 100% sized image that QC looks at. 

[Chuck Nacke]

It is not possible for me or anyone to answer the OP's question without seeing the image that

you are asking about. 

 

FYI  many of the images from 35mm scans that I have on Alamy I've spend hours spotting.  One image

that I worked on for almost two weeks has been licensed by Alamy over 20 times in two years.  In my opinion any

image that I start working on is worth the time spent completing.  That is also why my main account on

Alamy only has a bit more than 700 images posted.

[Robert Brook]

If it were sensor dust, then they would expect to see the same appearing on other images if taken consecutively.  The kind of dust you mention is more likely to be confused with film dust, but QC isn’t likely to fail a digital image because you have a dusty film.   Anyway, film dust has a particular signature which you can easily see if you blow the image up 200%.

 

Which, as Ed has pointed out, just leaves the aesthetics.  I often removed spots and blobs from images of water purely for the look.  For the same reason I would probably leave the sign exactly as it is.  I might even add a few that I had removed from the water.

[John Richmond]

Thanks for the answers, everyone.

 

Images where I have that problem are going to be few and far between - I simply rarely take them - but it's always good to have the benefit of others experience for future consideration.

[Robert M Estall]

Alamy QC would likely know the difference, but would the end client pass on such images and go for something where the photographer had taken a little more trouble? We have the tools, why not use them?

 

If you don't think it's worth the time, you might ask yourself if it's worth submitting.

 

Of course we should't over-scrub things

[Robert Brook]

Alamy QC would likely know the difference, but would the end client pass on such images and go for something where the photographer had taken a little more trouble? We have the tools, why not use them?

 

If you don't think it's worth the time, you might ask yourself if it's worth submitting.

 

Of course we should't over-scrub things

 

At the end of the day it's the intention, not the scrubbing that matters. I have scrubbed and polished images that sell repeatedly though usually for lowish prices (e.g D6HD28, also with Getty, Masterffile +++).  The intention is to create a clean, almost antiseptic, sometimes slightly alienating look.  On the other hand images that have sold for high/very high prices though perhaps not often** are much closer to what Ed Rooney above calls 'magic realism', although I would call 'realism'.  No scrubbing required.

 

RB

 

** Some just once