Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post-screening (JakTrax)  
User currently offlineJAKTRAX From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (1 year 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 945 times:

Hi folks,

A couple of rejections I'm not happy with......

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...8.6065pr-ogx_man_111112_kn_270.jpg

Originally rejected for contrast - which I thought a little picky - so I injected a touch more as I felt that's all it required. Rejected again for 'reupload' with the comment, "Minimal change". Is one not allowed to alter things only slightly these days? If it's changed (and that change acknowledged), it ain't a reupload, surely? The contrast looks fine to me incidently.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...921.1354f-bvff_cdg_0898_kn_615.jpg

Done for grainy (not surprising since it was shot in 1998) and 'blotchy sky' - which is in fact nothing more than high level cloud. Dark also mentioned.

Anyone care to share an opinion?

Cheers,

Karl

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 916 times:

Quoting JAKTRAX (Thread starter):
Originally rejected for contrast - which I thought a little picky

Contrast looks fine on my screen Karl, I can't see why that would be rejected for contrast. There's a true black and the highlights look fine to me. Very picky indeed.

The socond I can see why it was rejected for those reasons, I think you'll struggle with that one.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 896 times:

Thanks for the feedback Darren. I've appealed the Gully.

As for the Concorde shot, I can't do much about the cloud, which in the image takes on the appearance of a blotchy sky (if that's what they're referring to). Should I just brighten and resubmit?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1):
Contrast looks fine on my screen Karl, I can't see why that would be rejected for contrast.

To me the contrast does look like it could use a slight boost, but it's pretty minor. However, Photoshop disagrees about there being a true black on the airplane. If I were editing that shot for A.net, I would have added more contrast, based on the Levels graph.

Rejecting it for re-upload seems weird, though.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 865 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Photoshop disagrees about there being a true black on the airplane



As maybe, but there are times when true blacks aren't present in an image. Aircraft tyres are rarely black (except when wet), and even tones meant to be black sometimes don't look it, depending on the light and our eye perception. Fact is, the human eye is very good at determining colour, tone and contrast; so if it doesn't look black at the scene, it shouldn't look black in the image.

Perhaps too many people are spending too long looking at a computer screen and not enough time getting out and about to see how light works in reality?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinekukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 852 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 4):
there are times when true blacks aren't present in an image. Aircraft tyres are rarely black (except when wet), and even tones meant to be black sometimes don't look it, depending on the light and our eye perception. Fact is, the human eye is very good at determining colour, tone and contrast; so if it doesn't look black at the scene, it shouldn't look black in the image.

I tend to be conservative when editing photos for precisely this reason. If it's any consolation, I too have had photos rejected for contrast as a result. But photographers should beware of the tyranny of the histogram.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 847 times:

Quoting kukkudrill (Reply 5):
But photographers should beware of the tyranny of the histogram



Histograms are in many instances the photographer's enemy; they're rarely truly accurate, yet treated as gospel by almost everyone who picked up photography in the digital era. There's a huge difference between a true lack of contrast and a perceived lack of contrast due to lighting conditions.

As Darren says, the contrast is perfectly acceptable in my image. Sure, it would be fine with more but overall it's an accurate portrayal of the actual scene. I dare say professional organisations wouldn't find fault with it.

An over-reliance upon Photoshop and histograms is killing this hobby unfortunately.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4771 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not looking at your shot in Photoshop. Not necessary. Contrast isn't bad, but I do think it can use a bit of a boost. The underside of the wing looks a little flat and could be darker.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 837 times:

Something I will just add.....

Here is the Gully that landed minutes ahead of the one in question...

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Gulfs...d=0f6f33838a20fbe6f38d36bc314c3e30

The Brazilian example was battling a crosswind, and banked away from me when I pressed the shutter release - this explains why the underwing is brighter than perhaps expected. Also, the light wasn't quite as good as it was on the first aircraft.

I already had to inject THREE TIMES the contrast of the first image. Sometimes light just does these things.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4771 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Karl,

Open the photo in Photoshop and hit Auto Contrast. See if it gives a punch.

While I would never rely on Auto Contrast only, if I'm unsure whether I have nailed it myself I hit auto contrast. If it makes little or no change, I consider that to mean I have nailed the contrast. If it gives it a boost, I generally trust it.

Again, I only use it after I adjust it myself as a form of checking my work. Try it, see what happens.

[Edited 2012-12-02 14:52:38]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 832 times:

Ryan,

I'm not denying that it would look better with more contrast; I'm saying that I try and recreate the actual light at the scene, which I feel I have done with this image. As you say, contrast isn't bad, and as I mentioned, it already has three times the contrast of the first Gully image.

I try and recreate what my eyes saw - and the image is a perfect representation of that.

It's a picky rejection in my eyes, and there are far worse offenders recently accepted into the database.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4771 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
Ryan,

I'm not denying that it would look better with more contrast; I'm saying that I try and recreate the actual light at the scene, which I feel I have done with this image. As you say, contrast isn't bad, and as I mentioned, it already has three times the contrast of the first Gully image.

I try and recreate what my eyes saw - and the image is a perfect representation of that.

It's a picky rejection in my eyes, and there are far worse offenders recently accepted into the database.

Cheers,

Karl


Okay, but I don't think adding a little more contrast will alter the shot enough to no longer represent reality, but it can make the difference in getting it accepted.

It's frustrating, I know. Have you tried appealing?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 4):
Perhaps too many people are spending too long looking at a computer screen and not enough time getting out and about to see how light works in reality?

Maybe I do, Karl, but I also might have a better grasp of A.net acceptance criteria than you do.

Or maybe I spend PLENTY of time "getting out and about to see how light works in reality", and yet I still might have a better grasp of A.net acceptance criteria than you do.

Give it a boost of contrast and reupload. Or appeal it. Or do neither - I honestly don't care. But don't ask for help (about A.net rejections....in A.net's Photo Feedback Forum...) and then make snide comments about it if you don't agree.

Perhaps too many people are thinking that A.net expects photos to accurately represent reality in all instances.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
An over-reliance upon Photoshop and histograms is killing this hobby unfortunately.

No. NOTHING is killing this hobby, with the exception of people SAYING that Photoshop/histograms/whatever are killing this hobby. The rest of us just go about our business, enjoying it just as much as you do, whether you think so or not.

Amusingly enough, I was (completely unrelatedly) looking at old threads yesterday, and ran across a post where you said you don't upload to A.net because you don't know Photoshop and don't want your photos to be judged based on post-processing skills. Well, here you are, 6 years later, using Photoshop (I assume) and uploading.

So apparently times DO change.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinekukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 806 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 7):
The underside of the wing looks a little flat and could be darker.

By what standard? The wings of aircraft on approach are usually underlit to some extent by light reflected from the ground. Unnaturally strong areas of shadow on an aircraft simply make the photo look ugly. Ironically, to avoid this a lot of photographers - myself included - are often compelled to try to reduce the depth of the shadows after ramping up the contrast to a.net standards.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Perhaps too many people are thinking that A.net expects photos to accurately represent reality in all instances.

It no longer does then?  Wow!



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 793 times:

Vik,

I ain't had any issue with you in these forums but if you're gonna be one of those to take offence at the slightest thing then I don't have the time. This is a forum, and it's not wrong to disagree or have an opinion. Besides, the 'snide comment', as you call it, wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. When I get rejections such as, "Overexposed front portion of tail" (which was actually a flash of sun) I think it's only fair to assume the person screening is far more interested in post-processing than actually getting out there and seeing how light works. As someone with a very relaxed job I get the privilege to shoot more than most (4-5 days in a row some weeks), and believe me I know every little trick light can throw my way.

And you're right - you have a better grasp of Photoshop and this site's preferences than I perhaps ever will - but I'm a photographer and not an editor, and I still dislike the way a bad photo can be made to look good by Photoshop. Fact is, many experienced hands here have lent their support to the possibility that there is nothing wrong with the contrast in my photo - unless of course we're all wrong?

Sure, you would likely boost the contrast slightly and I thank you for putting forward your opinion but I can assure you a professional photography body wouldn't find issue with the Gully image.

Finally, I had a couple of other rejections same day - with which I actually agreed - so it's hardly as though I get my knickers in a twist every time one of mine gets the boot.

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
I ain't had any issue with you in these forums but if you're gonna be one of those to take offence at the slightest thing then I don't have the time.

No offense taken at all (I personally found it amusing mostly), but I don't see the need for those sort of comments. All it does is discourage people from responding. And you had quoted me (and only me), so I think it's fair to assume your comments were based on what I said.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Fact is, many experienced hands here have lent their support to the possibility that there is nothing wrong with the contrast in my photo - unless of course we're all wrong?

I never said there was anything "wrong" with the contrast. Nor did anyone else.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Sure, you would likely boost the contrast slightly and I thank you for putting forward your opinion but I can assure you a professional photography body wouldn't find issue with the Gully image.

Same deal. No one said there was anything "wrong". But you're asking about an A.net rejection, so you get comments in A.net terms - that is, what A.net expects from photos.

The contrast looks perfectly fine to me for a photo. But looks slightly low for an A.net upload.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4771 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kukkudrill (Reply 13):
By what standard?

By the immediate impression I got upon first glance. I said earlier there isn't anything wrong with the shot, but if I had to guess what is causing the screeners to think it needs more contrast, I'd guess its from the underside of the wing making the shot appear SLIGHTLY flat.

Again, I don't think giving another kick of contrast would kill the shot. But it would get it accepted based on the "feedback" from the screeners!



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 780 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 15):
The contrast looks perfectly fine to me for a photo. But looks slightly low for an A.net upload

Okay, fair play. It's just hard to know by comments alone whether individuals are criticising images from a photography or an A.net standpoint.

Karl


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post-screening (JakTrax)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format