Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1939 posts, RR: 7 Posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3946 times:
Normally, when I get a rejection, after having another careful look, I see what needs to be improved - even if the reason given is the unhelpful 'quality'. Yet for the first time a rejection sent me scratching my head - I just don't know what to fix. If it's the proverbial log in my own eye that I don't see, then maybe someone could point it out to me...
'Oversharpened' - maybe, even thought I don't really see any obvious 'juggies'; yet I might tend to oversharpen a little since I've received a few rejections for 'soft' of pictures that didn't seem soft at all to me. But what else could be improved, I mean the 'quality' part?
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1939 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
The third one is the original, it only was rotated, cropped and resized. As you might see, the grain must have come from the sharpening. Concerning Jeff's comments above - do you also think it was underexposed? And what about WB in the edited versions? A lot of very yellow grass in SA this year, yes ...
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3798 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 6): The third one is the original, it only was rotated, cropped and resized
I actually mean't the full sized original....
Anyway it is slightly underexposed yes. There is a strong yellow cast, but changing the levels will soon show you what looks better.
I've had a play with the shot here, but got nothing that I was impressed with. It could be a shot for the personal collection. However I would like to try an edit with a higher resolution before I write the shot off totally.
Anyway, about the colourcast... Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to question your expertise , I'm still learning (always learning), so... How do you personally identify colourcast - with any software or just arbitrarily, by eyeballing? I mean I have some software that is supposed to correct colorcast, but quite often I'm not happy with the result. On the contrary, after processing the photo seems to acquire a new tinge. Okay, sometimes it is quite obvious, you look at the picture and you can tell that it is bluish or yellowish, but other times, like in the case of this picture, yes, it may seem yellowish, but there is a lot of yellow grass around, and even the white surfaces will reflect it. There is no such thing as pure white in real life anyway, it will always reflect the strong colours around. As for this particular picture, the lighting may seem a bit strange, but I think it is because right at that moment there was a bit of cloud over the sun, you might have seen yourself how sometimes the lighting may change dramatically when it happens...
Well, in the essence - does it mean that whether the picture has this slight colourcast or not is up to the eye of the screener or the editor, or is there any objective means to identify it?