Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Contrast Rejection, Worth An Appeal?  
User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Hello,

I got this one rejected for contrast only today and I am thinking of appealing it. Is it worth a try or?
The shot was taken during the evening hours short before sundown...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080227_S5-AALVenghaus1.jpg

What do you think??

Cheers
Björn

[Edited 2008-02-27 11:20:21]

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Hi, Björn
I've got a lot of "contrast" rejections lately, the last one with similar histogram than yours. It seems to me A.net screeners agreed a new standard regarding contrast. I think i'm beginning to understand this and it seems your shadows are too dark. They doesn't show any detail.
As in some of my rejections, it shows the moment light, as you remarked it was taken during sunset; but this dark shadows doesn't seem to be welcome here.
My advise is you'll have to start a new edit...
Good luck with it.

Stil



....... Gueropppa! ......
User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

If you have the original RAW, I would bump up the shadows a bit to lighten up the underside of the aircraft. Otherwise, I'm almost certain you'll get a baddark rejection, sorry... Definitely don't appeal.


I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3093 times:



Quoting KLM772ER (Thread starter):
Is it worth a try or?

No. The rejection is correct. I don't think this shot could be accepted in appeal process.

_Hongyin_


User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3085 times:

Hi Björn

Nice pic, but Stil has it right: the shadows show no detail. I also would put the aircraft a little higher in the frame.

Good luck on your next try.  thumbsup 

Cheers  Smile
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1736 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wouldn't say the shadows aren't holding detail - it's still there. Just that they're too dark.


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1648 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 5):
I wouldn't say the shadows aren't holding detail - it's still there. Just that they're too dark.

Dan has it spot on !
I think that the overall quality looks good with the detail just being present but too dark. A little lift on the curve would probably rescue it unless it gets too noisy.
One other thing though......
If you look between the dark line of shadow under the fuselage and the white of the top of the fuselage, that 'band' is rather yellow and I think that the image needs a bit of blue adding too, just a few units in the mid tones.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

Hello all,

Thank you for your responses and help, here is the picture with a little curve adjustment and added a very little blue (I am still not really convinced of it, as it was a low sun, and they tend to be a little more yellow  Wink )

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/S5-AALVenghaus2.jpg

Any better??

Björn


User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting KLM772ER (Reply 7):

I think it is still very dark under the wings overall, and it probably wouldn't make it because of that. Sorry.

Regards,
Chris.

[Edited 2008-02-28 03:56:24]

User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

Hello,

I have another one, what do you think of it? Got rejected for contrast and dark.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080229_A6-EBGVenghaus8.jpg
Cheers
björn

[Edited 2008-02-29 14:11:12]

User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

Sorry... I'm guessing it won't make it since it looks as though it only has one main landing gear... nice shot though.

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2943 times:



Quoting LHSebi (Reply 10):
I'm guessing it won't make it since it looks as though it only has one main landing gear...

If you only see one main landing gear, than either mine or yours monitor seem to be way off regarding the contrast....
And I didn't change anything and also don't see any difference to before...
So anyone else only seeing one main gear in the shot? I am getting a bit concerned right now....

Cheers
Björn


User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

I was exaggerating, but I think you see my point. There is a very large and very dark shadow underneath the aircraft which I assume was the rejection reason!


I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2932 times:



Quoting KLM772ER (Reply 11):
So anyone else only seeing one main gear in the shot?

No I can easily see it. So why dark? because of the shadow? If so that's pretty lharsh isn't it?

I'm not understanding where Anet come from with contrast rejections sometimes. Some explanations would be great on it.

I don't wanna take over the thread but I got a dark and contrast on this....

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20080227_VH-ANO3feb.jpg


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1648 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2926 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting Eadster (Reply 13):
I'm not understanding where Anet come from with contrast rejections sometimes.

Martin
The rejection text is actually a pretty good description of the problem but the two examples Bjorn gives here are fairly representative of one extreme of the commonest problem. Sebastian was evidently being a little sarcastic, humourous, but he was also making a point. Look at the starboard undercarriage and, yes, that is there, but what about the tyres ? They have disappeared into the shadows and it is that that causes me to agree with the contrast rejection. The dark rejection ? I am not sure that I agree with that part though sometimes just brightening an image can restore that shadow detail. It maybe justified and the two often go together as it can be difficult at times to separate the problems without changing them.
In good old-fashioned photographic terms, not airliners.net rules, generally
1, Every image should have a pure black
2, Every image should have a pure white (failing on 1 or 2 leaves flat, muddy images)
3, Details should be held into the shadows and highlights (neither blocked up)
Bjorns fails on the last point with no detail being held into the shadows = valid contrast rejection.
No 1 is by far the commonest rejection reason where images have weak, smoky looking blacks that are effectively a very dark grey. If levels are opened on these images (Ctrl+L) there is usually a gap on the left of the histogram and moving the left slider in corrects the problem. If an image of mine shows the problem I move the left slider in whilst watching the blacks and stop at the point the blackest part loses its smokiness.
Incidentally, images with weak contrast tend to appear softer and those with high contrast tend to show oversharpening more so getting the contrast correct is a very important stage of getting your image right.
I hope this helps
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Thank you Mick, that clarified a lot (at least for me  Wink )

I will rework the EK shot soon and give it another try as I really like it especially with the anti tail strike device so clearly visible  Wink

Just one more question to all of you, is the CRJ really still to dark at the underside? As far as I see it and understand the above written it now looks ok to me than!

Björn


User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Hello,

here are both shots in a new edit:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/A6-EBGVenghaus10.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/S5-AALVenghaus3.jpg
Are they any better or still to much contrast?

Cheers
Björn


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1736 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Björn:

I'd say they're much better. Whether a screener thinks so might be different.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1417 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2814 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Bjoren,

Both edits are still rather dark in the midtones. If you go to the histogram and move the middle slider to about 1.20 you'll see the difference...however, be careful with the eventual grain and contrast issues when increasing the midtones.

Hope it helps  Smile .



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Thanks Andrés!

I deleted them from the queue.

Here is another edit of the T7:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/A6-EBGVenghaus12.jpg
It is a complete new edit from the start and I think it is much better now (Glad I shot raw  Wink )

The CRJ will follow as soon as I have a place in the queue  Wink

Björn


User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

And here is the new version of the CRJ:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/S5-AALVenghaus4.jpg

Björn


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...
Rejection Advice - Worth An Appeal? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 14:40:47 by UA935
Contrast Rejection Help Please posted Wed Feb 13 2008 18:07:31 by Mnazarinia
Help With A Contrast Rejection, Please! posted Thu Jan 31 2008 00:20:37 by Stil
Motive/Centered Rejection --> Should I Appeal? posted Mon Jan 14 2008 23:07:05 by AirKas1
Contrast Rejection posted Sun Jan 6 2008 04:27:07 by Javibi
Contrast Rejection - Please Help Me posted Sun Dec 30 2007 13:54:50 by Carlos
Worth An Appeal? posted Wed Dec 26 2007 07:15:17 by TweetDriver
Contrast Rejection posted Tue Dec 4 2007 13:49:46 by Carlos
Contrast Rejection posted Sun Oct 28 2007 23:23:41 by Carlos
F-22 Contrast Rejection posted Thu Sep 27 2007 00:29:55 by Scottieprecord