I'm well aware that my frequent remarks about dust-spots easily give a nit-picking impression. But I suppose, that just like me any other committed photographer tries to post pictures as perfect as possible; And I think that you too would be displeased if you look back in some years and find so annoying flaws such as dust spots in your appreciated QIs.
I suggest that 'review' should not only be seen as confirming: 'complies with the QI-standards', but also as the last chance to check for small errors wich can easily happen in enthusiasm for our good pictures. Therefore we could accept a not so blind as a bat lazy reviewer as assistance by honing our marvellous pictures.
So please have a little patience with me and my remarks, PtrQs (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And BTW: if there was a dust spot on one of your pictures, do you really believe this speck of dust lingered on your chip for just this fraction of a second? - maybe it might be a smart move to check the full set of these images PtrQs (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If you can edit the picture the easiest way to increase their visibility is by playing with the contrast in your picture. By raising it - above any sensible level - and adapting the brightness you will plainly see them.
And the best way to spot them is by choosing a magnification so you can see only a part of the picture and then continuously moving the cut in your window/frame. The human eye is not bad in recognising patterns, but it is much better in spotting a moving change. (And for not loosing that lousy dust spot, I move it to that one defect pixel on my screen, so I will re-find it after changing to edit/clone mode.) --PtrQs (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
PtrQs (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
