Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Acceptance - Post-Screening (JakTrax)  
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2204 times:

Hi all,

Had this one rejected for over-exposed and colour this morning.....

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...58068.5787a6-ehf_man_060309_kn.jpg

Now colour I can see as when I put it in the queue it appeared to have a slight yellow/green cast, although I thought it may scrape through. But over-exposure I just can't see. The sun reflecting off the fuselage and tail is quite normal for the Etihad gold colour, and due to the nature of the scheme it does reflect more light and play tricks with one's eyes. It may just be me but I'm not convinced about the over-exposure. Opinions please?

Karl

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineShnoob940 From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Wow! I don't understand why it was rejected! It's a great photo!


A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A388 733 734 735 737 738 739 743 744 762 763 773 788 E170 E190 Q400
User currently offline747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 838 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Morning Karl,
I hope you are keeping well.
The first thing I noticed was the greenish cast. As for the over-exposure, I see it along the length of the fuselage, just below the windows.
My favourite spot up there. I must make the effort and visit it again soon.

Phil


User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

Thanks Phil, nice to hear from you.

I see the cast (slightly yellow/green by the look of it) but that's not really an issue. Easily rectified. The over-exposure, in my view, is simply a line of sunflash under the windows on the forward fuselage - if this aircraft were white it'd be more obvious and I'm sure sunflash does not equate to underexposure.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

Just to point out what I'm getting at (and of course not taking anything away from the photographer's image - just an example)...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pawel Momont



As you can see the excess light on the fuselage and tail is caused by sun-flash and is more evident on this scheme than on Etihad's. I still may be wrong here but the over-exposure rejection seems a little harsh if caused by natural circumstances.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Karl.

I too would have marked this one as being overexposed - according to the strict A.net criteria. I know what you mean about the highlights, but it is just that little bit too much. The lower left portion of the tail is also a little 'hot', as they say.

Is the original jpeg or RAW? Obviously rectifiable if in RAW, but even in jpeg I would be happy to have a look at the original, as there may be a way to sort that out enough to get it through (a little trick a certain Professor Webb showed me!).

Let me know.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2130 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For me the reflection just kills the shot and overexposure was probably used as a way to highlight that problem. It's K64 sideshooting 101, avoiding the glare Smile

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Thanks guys.

Thing is though I see many images with glare here. I always avoid it and out in the field this picture nearly got deleted for the sun-flash but on screen it looked OK. I guess the gold hides it more than on a white aircraft. I've rectified it (I think) and removed the cast - should be OK now hopefully.....

I actually have a shot taken moments before with no sun-flash (which originally was my choice for upload) but this one seemed somehow 'nicer'. If this fails I'll try that one, as it will require far less Photoshop work.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...05971.1119a6-ehf_man_060309_kn.jpg

 crossfingers 

Karl


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...
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (woodentom) posted Sat Mar 7 2009 06:30:32 by Woodentom
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (Walter2222) posted Fri Mar 6 2009 01:23:56 by Walter2222
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (nikog) posted Thu Mar 5 2009 11:23:54 by Nikog
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (Neophyte) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 20:39:28 by Neophyte
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (psyops) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 08:42:26 by Psyops
Photo Acceptance - Post-Screening (DeltaAVL) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 05:48:53 by DeltaAVL
Photo Acceptance- Post-screening (chuck9941) posted Sun Mar 1 2009 00:58:00 by Chuck9941
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (idiotdoc) posted Fri Feb 27 2009 07:33:09 by Idiotdoc
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (CaliSam) posted Mon Mar 9 2009 00:14:30 by CaliSam
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (ChiefNWA) posted Sat Mar 7 2009 16:35:55 by ChiefNWA