Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does This Happen?  
User currently offlineLOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 8
Posted (7 years 6 months ago) and read 3303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I knew this shot would risk a motiv rejection but thought the brake testing was pretty cool.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...20070302_Korean-HL7758-braking.jpg
It was rejected for contrast with a personal note saying it was a nice shot and to please fix the contrast and reupload....

Today the re-edit was rejected for soft, oversharp, and MOTIV  Confused
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...20070308_Korean-HL7758-braking.jpg

I wouldn't have bothered to fix it and reupload if I had gotten the motiv rejection the first time.

Sometimes I feel there is a concipracy to keep my ratio below 60%  Wink
but seriously isn't there a way to aviod this type of thing?

Just a little venting, as I usually don't complain about rejections.

Thanks!

Kevin


Missed 4 chasing 1
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Hi Kevin,

I like the effect, but the shot seems a little "awkward". Not quite qualifying for a nose shot, but at the same time not showing the whole aircraft. Have you tried a closer crop of the front end of the fuselage?

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Hey Kevin,

Nice shot, the only thing is you cut off the tail... that will cause the motiv rejection... as far as the soft.. this image could use some sharpening, just a little, but, its boarder line over exposed, have a look at the engine... and the white of the body is close...

I hope that helps,

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

Hey Tim,

Actually a side profile of the front quarter doesn't qualify as a "nose" crop.. only a head on shot of the nose does... just to let you know...

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

It's a great shot.

That photo is no where near overexposed. Sometimes I think people are so used to underexposed shots that theydon't know what to do when a proper exposure comes a long. "Close" is where white is supposed to be.


User currently offlineLOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3281 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gmonney (Reply 2):
Nice shot, the only thing is you cut off the tail... that will cause the motiv rejection

Thanks for the replies. This was my point, it wasn't rejected on the 1st time around for motiv, so I took the time to re-edit it based on the assumption that it had ducked the motiv stick for whatever reason.
My motiv was to show the long trail of burning rubber and also leave the series number in frame, but I understand it is off balance and/or akward.
I didn't think it was overexposed?
Thanks again!

Kevin

[Edited 2007-03-08 02:17:35]


Missed 4 chasing 1
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Hi Grant,

On second glance, I wouldn't upload a closer crop as a "nose" shot. I have a couple of shots of the front end in the DB that include the wing like that, which aren't uploaded as such.

Where do you draw the line as to what is and isn't though? This one is a side-on shot and I would say shows the first 1/4.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Goodwin



Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3272 times:

Quoting Gmonney (Reply 3):
only a head on shot of the nose


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mathias Krewedl



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Williams
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Edgar Beugels


and so on... None of the last 10 accepted 'nose' shots is a headon.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKnighty From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Exposure wise - I'd say it's spot on! Like Jeff said, white is supposed to be close to being overexposed - not a washed out grey!
Motiv - I thnk if you'd cropped it behind the left gear it would seem more balanced while still showing plenty of smoke.

Knighty



Ian Knight - Proud Canon shooter!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4783 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gmonney (Reply 2):
as far as the soft.. this image could use some sharpening, just a little,

MORE sharpening? That shot looks way over-sharpened on my screen. Jaggies all over the flaps, the top of the fuselage and the nose gear doors.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

I'm going to agree with Knighty and Jeff here. The shot is pretty much spot on exposure wise.

As for sharpening more, you'll just add another rejection reason to the list as it will go for jaggered.

This is another no win situation. I can understand your frustration in having it rejected for totally different reasons the second time around.

Sorry Kevin, but its a great shot and its a shame about the shot being booted.

I gather that the shot was screened on a CRT monitor??


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 4):
That photo is no where near overexposed. Sometimes I think people are so used to underexposed shots that theydon't know what to do when a proper exposure comes a long. "Close" is where white is supposed to be.

Jeff is bang on with this comment.
I have had my acceptance ratio drop from something like 85% down to 56% now. The majority of rejections I have had were Exposure, the images were bright, clear and spot on according to both Capture One and Photoshop.

I use a CRT that is calibrated every week, how many screeners can say they calibrate their monitors?

In my view things are getting daft around here now.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3125 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Kevin,

Well, you definitely have a good image there that will eventually make it into the DB!
Grant gave you good hints on why it was rejected, but I have to say that like Jeff and the others pointed out, I have a hard time finding any overexposure on it (hard to find a few 255s). There are a couple of small parts where some selective sharpening wouldn't hurt (engine cowling, fuselage underside), while others are almost oversharpened (mostly high contrast lines). Overall, if it wasn't for the motive (and maybe even with the motive) I would appeal.
If you want to try a reedit, then just go for a very little less contrast (will help you with the oversharpened lines), crop closer to the left main landing gear (or better, if you have a frame with the full tail in it, include that one), and you should be ready to go - good luck!



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3104 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Kevin.

Such a crop is always borderline motiv, when I screened it I noted the motiv, anytime you have 2/3s or 3/4s of an airframe it will be borderline.

I gather that the shot was screened on a CRT monitor??

Of course it was, we screen on CRTs. And, it is jaggie on my monitor, the trailing edge of the wing looks like:



The whites look really "hot" around the wing root.

I use a CRT that is calibrated every week, how many screeners can say they calibrate their monitors?

Mine is calibrated. Wanna come over and have a peek? I will even buy you lunch.

The majority of rejections I have had were Exposure, the images were bright, clear and spot on according to both Capture One and Photoshop.

And how does Photoshop tell you exposure is spot on? Examples please!


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Lunch sounds good Royal!  coffee 
I'm glad to hear that at least one screener has their monitor calibrated.

These are a couple of images in question;
Image 1
Image 2

Hope you can help.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2998 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Ian - that first shot is very washed out. Look at the trees, no way the scene looked like that given the sun was to the rear of your shooting position.

The second shot seems okay, exposure wise, but looks a little soft and has a bit of a blue cast.

Royal


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Thanks for taking the time to look.
I see what you mean about the first shot, I will have a play with it in Photoshop.

Cheers,
Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

Quoting Woody001 (Reply 11):
I use a CRT that is calibrated every week, how many screeners can say they calibrate their monitors?

There is no relation between monitor calibration and the exposure of any given photo.
A monitor is just a output device which does not have any effect on the histogram calculated by PS or any other program.
All you need is this little levels window:



to see that the highlights(albeit just) as well as the dark tones are off the scale which means there is to much contrast put into it.
The use of "auto levels" and/or "auto contrast" will give you the same result in many cases.

So reduce the contrast somewhat with "Layer" , "New Adjustment layer" , "Brightness/Contrast" (as one of the possibilities) and go from there.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

In fairness to Kevin your Levels Window ("Histogram") has the Airliners.net copyright bar, which is pure black, and thus why your seeing "dark tones are off the scale" (your words).

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
In fairness to Kevin your Levels Window ("Histogram") has the Airliners.net copyright bar, which is pure black, and thus why your seeing "dark tones are off the scale" (your words).

Oeps..... forgot about the bar but apart from that it does not chance the theory.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Things worked out for this shot anyhow.
Cheers Royal for your advice.  bigthumbsup 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Woodcock



Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
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...
Why Does This Always Have To Happen To Me? posted Tue Nov 26 2002 10:09:08 by Pepef
Why Does This Site Discourage Photography? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 08:43:43 by Billsville
Attn D30 Users, Does This Happen To You? posted Thu Jan 8 2004 19:56:36 by Jkw777
Does This Happen Often? posted Thu Aug 1 2002 07:09:41 by KG4IKI
What's This? And Why Does A.net Think It's A 747? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 08:00:21 by D L X
Does This Look Ready To Go? posted Thu Feb 1 2007 20:36:59 by JakTrax
Does This Photo Have What It Takes For Anet? posted Fri Jan 12 2007 15:33:08 by AIRBUSRIDER
Does This Shot Stand A Chance? posted Tue Jan 2 2007 12:26:11 by Silver1SWA
Does This Picture Stand A Chance? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 00:49:10 by Acontador
What Category Does This Fit Into? posted Thu Dec 14 2006 04:23:12 by San747