Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I presume this is likely to fail QC, despite being a natural phenomenon rather than a photographic artifact?

 

Alan

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, looks more like a total white-out to me . . . or are you speaking generally? :-)

 

dd

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha. I meant "this" to refer to the subject title. It didn't occur to me that it could be interpreted another way!

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a beach shot with heat haze blurring the town in the distance. Even though it passed I made sure I made comment in the description. I think that's important so that the buyer is aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been failed on quite mild heat haze, but back in the days when it only took a few days to be notified. Now it's a month I wouldn't go near it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have images of landings and warming-ups of aircrafts waving all over in jet engine heat waves and heat reflection from the ground. I don't dare to upload them

Edited by Niels Quist
Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual in photography, a "little bit" will look like a flaw. But if it looks very obvious - whether it is motion blur or heat haze - I'm pretty sure it will pass QC.

See obvious heat haze examples here, here and here.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

It's notable in those three instances that there is sharp definition on a prominent feature in the shot and I would not hesitate to upload something similar.

 

What might be problematic would be an overall haze that accurately reflected the scene and may have captured the atmosphere of the situation.

 

I have noticed that some motion blur images, where nothing is sharp, have got through the net and on to publication. They serve to convey a sense of movement very well, but, with random sampling, you can't be sure that they were inspected on submission. I have had a series of panned images accepted, where the moving subject is not quite to the normal standards of crispness, but you might expect some latitude in those circumstances.

Edited by Bryan
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was prompted by some telephoto shots I took a few days ago where the whole image is at a distance so there is nothing in the foreground to indicate sharpness. However, the haze is not apparent until you blow it up to 100% which is why I assumed it would fail. Below is the original shot plus two 100% sections, in which the haze looks like interpolation artefacts. I'm not going to risk these images because I have an excellent QC record that I don't want to damage, but I thought it would be interesting to know what others thought about it.

 

Alan

 

ffez9136.jpg

 

FFEZ9136a.jpg

 

FFEZ9136b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had shots with heat haze and always avoided uploading them as they could fail due to SoLD. This was when the main subject was affected even though closer components in the image were sharp.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan, I'm admittedly not very good at spotting stuff like this, but are you sure that is heat haze and not just a touch of "telephoto softness"? I've photographed a lot in very hot tropical areas and have never had a problem (that I know of) with heat haze. Your part of the world doesn't usually sizzle, I thought, or has global warming set in?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

If you use Lightroom CC you might be interested in this feature, purportedly coming soon.

 

Dehaze, they call it.

 

 

Sounds interesting. However, I prefer to keep my software on my computer rather than in a cloud, so I wonder if this is likely to make it into a terrestrial version. Or to put it another way, will there even be terrestrial versions in a couple of years' time?

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you use Lightroom CC you might be interested in this feature, purportedly coming soon.

 

Dehaze, they call it.

 

 

Sounds interesting. However, I prefer to keep my software on my computer rather than in a cloud, so I wonder if this is likely to make it into a terrestrial version. Or to put it another way, will there even be terrestrial versions in a couple of years' time?

 

Alan

 

 

The software is on your computer......as would be LR6 as a standalone...... don't worry about a few years time, global warming will have made everything hazy....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you use Lightroom CC you might be interested in this feature, purportedly coming soon.

 

Dehaze, they call it.

 

 

Sounds interesting. However, I prefer to keep my software on my computer rather than in a cloud, so I wonder if this is likely to make it into a terrestrial version. Or to put it another way, will there even be terrestrial versions in a couple of years' time?

 

Alan

 

 

It's interesting that LR6 isn't mentioned; although that could be a slip.  Unless you are a conspiracy theorist ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 don't worry about a few years time, global warming will have made everything hazy....

 

 

So cloud computing is actually preparing us for the afterlife?

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.