Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Another Crazy Rejections.  
User currently offlineYULtoPEI From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 218 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Another time, i ask you guy's what i can do with my last rejection batch...

Brand new Canon 30D, L glass series but still have complete batch rejection !!!

Can you help me ??????

Thoses 2 are rejected for over exposed... and i don't understand why!!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060815_30D7aout06119PH-BFC.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060813_30D7aout06030F-GISE.jpg

And this one for level... the vertical line are perfect ???

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060813_30D7aout06196G-YMMG.jpg

Any advice are welcome.


PEI in Colombia!!!. [Canon T2i]
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1948 times:

Quoting YULtoPEI (Thread starter):
And this one for level... the vertical line are perfect ???

I feel it needs slight CCW rotation.

Air France looks a bit overexposed.

_Hongyin_

[Edited 2006-08-16 00:04:17]

User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

The over exposed shots don't look too bad from my screen. I can say they are a little bright, but I wouldn't say too bad. The level rejection needs some CCW rotation, but that was just an eyeball, not using photoshop.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineB076 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 140 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting YULtoPEI (Thread starter):
and i don't understand why

KLM shot is over exposed on the tail and overall to bright.

Air france shot is over exposed on nose and mid section of fuselage and look a bit soft on my screen.

BA shot need some CCW rotation as mentioned and looks soft.

Hope this helps
Just my  twocents 

William


User currently offlineBottie From Belgium, joined May 2004, 281 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting YULtoPEI (Thread starter):
Brand new Canon 30D, L glass series but still have complete batch rejection !!!

That's still no guarantee for having top-shots ...

AF is overexposed, especially nose and in the middle

KLM, the tail is on the limit, maybe a little over the limit


Bram


User currently offlineNorfolkjohn From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 251 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Both the KLM and Air France shots are overexposed. The whites are too bright. If the shots were taken in RAW it may be possible to correct this by going back to the original files. If they were taken in .jpg format there is scope for some adjustment through levels in PhotoShop but I fear this will not quite produce a good enough result.

There are a few things you can do to reduce the chances of overexposure / excessively bright whites. Firstly you can try setting a little under exposure compensation. This is what I do in bright lighting conditions and I find that minus one third of a stop works in most cases. As mentioned above you can shoot RAW and then try to correct the exposure at the post processing stage. (I don't do this as I find it harder than sorting the exposure in the camera). You can also look at the white balance setting on the camera and perhaps use a custom white balance setting based on a standard grey card. (Details are in the camera instruction book). Finally the method most likely to achieve genuinely correct exposure in the camera would be to use a separate hand held incident (as opposed to reflected) light-meter.

I stick with a little exposure compensation and careful adjustment of levels in PS. I only have Elements 2 and am no expert on the editing front but I usually manage a satisfactory result via this route.

Apart from the exposure issues I would say that all three shots are a bit softish and could stand a further kick of sharpness. There are also dust spots visible on the KLM and Air France shots. If you can't see them equalize the images and you will not be able to miss them.

I would agree that in the BA shot the verticals are vertical but the shot feels like it is not level. This is an old debate but within reason you just have to go with what looks right. I am no Screener but in this case I would not have given a rejection for level but would not have been happy with the sharpness or the fact that the horizontal tail fin had been cut off.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

All the best,

John



One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.
User currently offlineYULtoPEI From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Thank you guy's for your fast reply...
I will try another time for sure, but for the overexposed, i think is really, but really small overexposed.

Sometime i really not understand screeners eyes.
maybe a answer of a screeners can clarify this situation.



PEI in Colombia!!!. [Canon T2i]
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

Quoting YULtoPEI (Thread starter):
Can you help me ??????

Learn not to use your camera's exposure. Those shots are overexposed, it's easy to see why too.


User currently offlineNicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

IMHO, they are not crazy rejections but fair... With a 30 seconds work on each photo I got to this...

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5291/2006081530d7aout06119phbfcsy7.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4874/2006081330d7aout06030fgiseea7.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5980/2006081330d7aout06196gymmgnl4.jpg



Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting YULtoPEI (Reply 6):
maybe a answer of a screeners can clarify this situation.

I guess the other contributors summed it up fairly well, but here you go:

- the BA's angle looks odd even though the verticals appear to be more or less ok.
- the AF and KL are overexposed and soft.

No crazy rejections here IMO.


Giovanni


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

Quoting NicolasRubio (Reply 8):
IMHO, they are not crazy rejections but fair... With a 30 seconds work on each photo I got to this...

I have no idea what you did there, but the first two planes look like they have military camouflage colours now.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Here's Another Few Rejections For 'ya... posted Thu Oct 9 2003 03:19:34 by Futterman
Well, Another 2 Rejections posted Sat Apr 15 2006 19:54:50 by Glapira
Help With These Two Rejections posted Thu Nov 16 2006 21:11:41 by JoeIro
4 (harsh?) Rejections - Screener Comment Please posted Sun Nov 12 2006 08:23:56 by D L X
Another Photo Request Question posted Sat Nov 11 2006 09:53:23 by Dazed767
Colour Rejections posted Tue Nov 7 2006 00:07:15 by AirKas1
Another Bad Motive? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 13:51:53 by JetJock22
Two Rejections, Why? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:11:39 by Pitchul
Another Pre-screening Thread.. posted Sun Oct 15 2006 20:28:43 by SA006
Another Amazing Rainbow Contrail! posted Thu Oct 12 2006 01:28:07 by NicolasRubio