The over-exposure is simply sun-flash down the fuselage (there are many pictures here with this), however it seems to stick out more on the gold finish. Everything else is exposed correctly. I have another image of this aircraft from the same sequence without the flash, however I'm getting really confused with this current one.
To top it off, the 'other' site accepted it without hesitation - now I know their rules aren't QUITE as strict but surely they'd spot and reject a definitive over-exposure, no?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 3): Frankly you should have waited a little while until the reflection was gone...
I did wait, however my lens decided to do some hunting and the next two shots came out blurry. The frame before was good - no reflection but not exactly side-on. I was originally going to ulpoad that one but decided to risk the side-on as I thought the sun-flash was pretty discreet.
I hate sun-flash to be honest and always avoid it, however I couldn't help but feel it kinda looked OK on that gold fuselage. There are lots of images on here with similar sun-flash, so how come they weren't 'killed'? Also, I appreciate some hate sun-flash (me included) but I'm still convinced that, although a fair amount of flash is evident, my shot isn't under-exposed. Again, I know the 'other' site's standards are slightly (and only slightly) lower, but can you really see them accepting an obviously over-exposed shot?
I'm clearly not going to win the battle here but I have seen very similar shots to mine in the database - and I'm not talking about acceptances when screening was more relaxed. I don't like the flash either to be honest but I still can't see the over-exposure I'm afraid. But end-of-story I suppose - it's been rejected and that's it. No problem.