KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1896 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...
Stil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1870 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.
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1838 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.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
I wouldn't say the shadows aren't holding detail - it's still there. Just that they're too dark.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1790 times:
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
KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1782 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 )
KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1676 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....
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1675 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.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
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
KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1645 times:
Thank you Mick, that clarified a lot (at least for me )
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
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!
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1577 times:
Björn:
I'd say they're much better. Whether a screener thinks so might be different.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
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 .
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 977 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, 
)
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
