MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3553 times:
It is a bit curious, the antennas are pin sharp, but the leading edge of the winglet is problematic. I've got another frame but with less aircraft visible it wouldn't fit on this site. So I made another try and added also a bit brightness. Would be a pity if it doesn't make it because I like the motive very much (but that doesn't matter I think ).
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2795 times:
Thank you for the explanation, it's really helpful for me to collect experience. And yes you're absolutely right. In this case I already used ISO1250 and additional pushed it in post-processing about 1EV - so when I think right, yes, there are really better shots online - no problem.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2235 times:
can someone with a reliable monitor look if the color of this photo is ok now? My monitor is not professionally calibrated, so I have to rely on the AWB of my cam...
In the rejection there was no remark, only the tag color. It could have been a bit yellow, I have tried to correct that:
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
A bit yellow, but the bigger problem is the contrast. In fact, checking the logs, this had been rejected twice for contrast, and it looks like you've made minimal to no change to the contrast between the two images. I suggest you do something to address that if you decide to attempt the image again.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
so that brings light into darkness. Am I right that the contrast is to high? I thought in the other direction and increased it after the first rejection, did I misunderstood?
HB-JHJ (now with less contrast and corrected white balance):
So I have to ask about a second shot from this sequence. Maybe I over-corrected the contrast issue after this one was rejected first because of low contrast, in the second rejection contrast was complained without notice so I increased it again. You can have a look:
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
this is the rejected one:
I got no advice in which way the colour should be corrected. For the rejected one I used automatic white balance. I adjusted the new one a little bit into the blue direction because from my experience awb sometimes tends to have a yellowish tint.
While we're at it I would link to ask another question:
This one was rejected first time due to over-sharpened (the only reason). I reedited it and now it was rejected because of crop, dead space in front of the aircraft. But as described in the rejection guide (acceptable off-center) I have a reason to crop it this way - to show the aircraft behind. How is your opinion?
BTW, I never get these rejection mails, so I have no chance not appeal it. Do I risk a warning when I try it again maybe with a comment to the screeners?
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1260 times:
I am going to adjust the colour of the first photo again, it is no problem because I use RAW format. Generally I just have more confidence in the AWB then in my uncalibrated monitor and mostly it works good.
As you share my opinion on the off-centered second photo I decided to appeal it - let's see what is going to happen...
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1234 times:
I am not surprised that the appeal was declined because of the grainy issue, but beside that the reason is again bad centered. Sure that I should crop it this way? It really does not look better with this cutted 747:
Or should I first work on the grainy issue only and try it again with the first crop?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 35, posted (6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1234 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
I see there were not any comments about the crop on the appeal so it could be that whoever handled it forgot to remove 'centering' as a reason, but I guess you'd be better off now just re-submitting with the tighter crop.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 438 times:
I recently changed my monitor and have calibrated it. Now I can comprehend why some shots before got rejected. However I have to get used to it. Unconsciously I still apply the compensation which was necessary with the old monitor.
So this one was rejected for color (blue cast) and grainy in 1400px resolution. I reedited the shot today and exported in only 1200px:
Is it OK now? For me it looks good, but it is tricky to get the right balance due to the different light temperatures between the foreground (shadow on engine and wing) and the daylight in background.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (3 weeks 1 day 19 hours 40 minutes ago) and read 256 times:
Since I got my new and calibrated monitor, I understand why the picture in post 40 (Swiss A319) was rejected.
Now I was trying to get a reedited version accepted, but it was rejected twice for overexposed and now for low contrast and soft. Before getting the next rejection I would like to ask for your opinion.