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?
747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 820 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1467 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.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1462 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.
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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
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!).
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
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
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1395 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 162 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 820 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
