Although dissapointed at the rejection, as always, I'm looking forward to the challenge and learning from the more experienced of you out there, ways to improve my results.
Many thanks in advance for your suggestions/help...
Regards, Paul.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1379 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
Hi Paul,
How are you keeping? What exactly was the shot rejected for? I can see it is tricky with the light being behind you in some way. It also seems oversharpened on the building behind although the heat haze from the engine probably contributed to that.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2874 times:
In a recent thread there were complaints about quality rejections and their lack of specifics. The generic quality rejection, and I have seen plenty myself, says that there are faults, possibly minor and this image by Nucky is a good example.
At an instant glance it is a nice image and almost certainly a redeemable one.
There are several faults, all minor, but which contribute to a valid quality rejection.
As pointed out by Enrique it is slightly oversharp. Enough for a rejection on it's own ?
Probably not !
As Linco22 points out, the lighting is tricky. I see it as a touch dark and a quick play with the curve brightens it up beautifully. Would that being slightly too dark, be enough for a rejection on its own?
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
I am certain that if Lasham had got in before me he would have pointed out a slight green cast, probably not enough for a rejection on its own. I added a mere 7 units of Magenta and the cast went.
However, our lovely shot we started with now has three minor faults all of which TOGETHER add up to a quality rejection.
Now go away and put all three right and I am pretty sure that we will all be seeing it soon !
Perhaps a littlle insight into how I, a Screener in Training, would look at it may help explain this rejection.
Nucky, I hope this helps
Mick Bajcar
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2825 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5): In a recent thread there were complaints about quality rejections and their lack of specifics. The generic quality rejection, and I have seen plenty myself, says that there are faults, possibly minor and this image by Nucky is a good example.
At an instant glance it is a nice image and almost certainly a redeemable one.
There are several faults, all minor, but which contribute to a valid quality rejection.
As pointed out by Enrique it is slightly oversharp. Enough for a rejection on it's own ?
Probably not !
As Linco22 points out, the lighting is tricky. I see it as a touch dark and a quick play with the curve brightens it up beautifully. Would that being slightly too dark, be enough for a rejection on its own?
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
I am certain that if Lasham had got in before me he would have pointed out a slight green cast, probably not enough for a rejection on its own. I added a mere 7 units of Magenta and the cast went.
However, our lovely shot we started with now has three minor faults all of which TOGETHER add up to a quality rejection.
Now go away and put all three right and I am pretty sure that we will all be seeing it soon !
Perhaps a littlle insight into how I, a Screener in Training, would look at it may help explain this rejection.
Nucky, I hope this helps
Mick Bajcar
Excellent Mick, really just great!
But wouldn't it be possible to just add a personal saying "slightly oversharp, a touch dark, slight green cast" instead of just "quality", particularly in this case since it's a really nice pic? Just asking...
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2808 times:
Quoting Acontador (Reply 7): But wouldn't it be possible to just add a personal saying "slightly oversharp, a touch dark, slight green cast" instead of just "quality", particularly in this case since it's a really nice pic?
On the face of it, yes and a lot of the time we do.
However, multiply that by 50 or 100 of times a day and we all know what would happen to the queue.
Nucky has taken the sensible route and come here for advice. As pointed out by others on that other thread, less subtly than I will, we are here to screen not advise but we do try to do both as much as possible.
My comments to Nucky were intended to show how a good looking image like his can with closer assessment, screening, can move to bad quality. Nucky's have three small faults, a lot of bad quality shots can have a lot more when time would rapidly become an issue.
Mick Bajcar
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Lovely shot Paul glad it got in .
And to Mick a (screener in training ) Mate you sound like you have been doing it for years and doing a dang good job of it too
Just great insight and your a great help when you give advice.
Cheers
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 31 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, 
...that's me, thanks for the help guys!
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
