JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1662 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
Just got the following image kicked for bad editing:
While I can't specifically recall what I did to this shot, for a simple overhead shot like this my normal workflow would have been to touch up dust spots (I have one pesky one that I can't get rid of), adjust the levels, then crop. I may have also used the white balance tool in the raw editor as well, but again I can't specifically recall. The shot didn't make it past the first round of screening, so there must be something pretty obvious that I'm missing.
In my mind, the two actions that I took that could have resulted in the editing reject are the white balance adjust and dust spot touch-up, but to my eyes things look OK in those areas. I'd like to re-submit the shot, but unless I know what to fix I don't see the point. Any thoughts?
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
My guess would be the sky. On close scrutiny it shows a lot of 'artifacts' (sometimes wrongly referred to as 'too much JPG compression'), like you adjusted too much levels (including the sky) and maybe on top of that sharpened the sky, too.
Edit: Too slow, Royal beat me! There is a reason why he's a screaner...
[Edited 2007-03-29 18:55:30]
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1845 times:
Quoting JohnJ (Reply 3): Actually, not. I have no idea how to use the Shadow/Highlights tool or where I'd even find it
I can believe that John. It does not surprise me that Royal pointed out the underside of the wing, as many of the screeners focus a lot on contrast issues and I know there is a general dislike of that tool in PS. But we cannot underestimate the effect of lighting in particular circumstances. I have a shot where many might be concerned about the use of that tool - I have never used it myself either - and the effect of the lighting in the photo below is solely due to the high reflectance of the surface that day; in my case due to the angle of the sun and snow on the ground - nothing to do with editing:
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1662 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 4): Hi John. I don't really know what to say. That was my first thought when I viewed the large image you provided in this thread.
Not a problem - and thanks for replying to my thread (thanks everyone else, too, for the input). Perhaps the easiest thing to do at this point is use another shot from the sequence - I clicked off 4-5 of them and they all turned out OK.