Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1762 times:
Hi Jeff (in Denver)
It is dark, but it was dark when I took it. I had to meter the instruments, otherwise they'd be overexposed. It's a 6 sec exposure and taken on a tripod.
But that's beside the point. What I'm suggesting is a second queue for shots that the screeners think will make the db after a little retouching. 1 screener could be appointed to be in charge of such a queue. And you wouldn't have to queue twice with the same picture.
Most of my shots deserve to be rejected, but I've just started this hobby...
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2937 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Peter, there are a couple of things I would point out to you.
First off, a little bit of USM is needed, and this helps the sharpness. But unfortunately that isn't the only issue that IMHO resulted in the rejection.
The photo is basically boring. It is a mass of glowing lights and instruments without any frame of reference. By this I mean that the panel really isn't visible, nor the crew at work, nor any outside detail.
The two other photos you post as example shots by both Joe and Manuel tell a story. They show the crew at work, the instruments in the panel which you can clearly see. Also they show some detail outside the windows to frame and reference the photos. Your photo on the other hand is simply glowing dials floating in a basically black hole.
As I said, the difference isn't just sharpness, but story information conveyed. Yours is a good effort, but it needs just that bit more to make A.net standards. Don't be discouraged, just keep plugging.