Hi,
from time to time I really get a bit mad about some screening results.
This pic https://abload.de/img/q33a2424-1grossfilter6hkmr.jpg was first rejected for "underexposed" and "cw-rotation".
After appeal (Pic is level (see right lightpost) , horizon sneaks away due to not 90 degrees. Why shall the pic be underexposed Ifdf exposed more the nose will be burnt out.) I got this:
- Colour
- Noise
- Personal Message
The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Level is OK. Image has a yellow color cast visible in the nose area. Sky could use some noise reduction as well."
First rejetion points no issue anymore but now two other ones!!!
Everybody who knows this location knows that there are lights with differents temperatures and that you never get the colors all over the same due to that. The nose is always a bit yellow by nightshots in that location and I have many similar pics in the db with that.
And suddenly there is noise which was not an issue before and which I cannot see at all.
What do you think?
Rainer
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Multiple nightshot rejection
I think the photo looks fine. The noise in the sky is really not very visible in the small photo that you shared. The yellowish color is caused, as you say, by the light temperature and the fact the the whole image is quite saturated (which looks good on the plane and sky).
On the other hand, you could easily remove the yellow cast around he nose by simply decreasing the saturation in that area. And reduce the noise by running it through a noise removing software program. If you don't have the tools to do that just message me and I will do it for you and send it back to you. Of course that doesn't guarantee it will meet their standards, haha.
It's a lovely, colorful photo of a beautiful plane and livery and deserves a place here.
On the other hand, you could easily remove the yellow cast around he nose by simply decreasing the saturation in that area. And reduce the noise by running it through a noise removing software program. If you don't have the tools to do that just message me and I will do it for you and send it back to you. Of course that doesn't guarantee it will meet their standards, haha.
It's a lovely, colorful photo of a beautiful plane and livery and deserves a place here.
Re: Multiple nightshot rejection
Hello Rainer,
Anytime an image gets a second screening, it is not unusual for other issues to be identified. I realize it is frustrating to have an mage rejected for additional reasons, but the end goal is always to get the best quality image accepted into the database. Having said all of that, I rejected the image for color. IMO, the following is what I had in mind for improved color balance and less noise in the sky. They are relativelky easy fixes. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Jehan
Anytime an image gets a second screening, it is not unusual for other issues to be identified. I realize it is frustrating to have an mage rejected for additional reasons, but the end goal is always to get the best quality image accepted into the database. Having said all of that, I rejected the image for color. IMO, the following is what I had in mind for improved color balance and less noise in the sky. They are relativelky easy fixes. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Jehan
Re: Multiple nightshot rejection
Hi jelpee,
thank you very much for your quick answer, explanation and the reedited version. Honestly: I do not like your edit at all. Especially the rear part of the fuselage is much too blue and also the tail is a bit darker and has a blue tint. The whole pic looks quite artificial and does not show the ligt situation at all. Imo this has nothing to do with better quality but very much with the personal taste of a screener. And this is the point I refer too and makes me a bid mad. Like I wrote I have quite many nigtshots of his position in the db where this isue was never a point. I will definitly not reedit this pic (if noise would have been the only issue I would have done it) and reupload it against my personal attitude of quality. So it will only be shown in other dbs and stay in my personal collection. Besides hat I will refrain from uplaod nightshots from this position if they have to look like your reedit to be accepted. Best greetings Rainer
thank you very much for your quick answer, explanation and the reedited version. Honestly: I do not like your edit at all. Especially the rear part of the fuselage is much too blue and also the tail is a bit darker and has a blue tint. The whole pic looks quite artificial and does not show the ligt situation at all. Imo this has nothing to do with better quality but very much with the personal taste of a screener. And this is the point I refer too and makes me a bid mad. Like I wrote I have quite many nigtshots of his position in the db where this isue was never a point. I will definitly not reedit this pic (if noise would have been the only issue I would have done it) and reupload it against my personal attitude of quality. So it will only be shown in other dbs and stay in my personal collection. Besides hat I will refrain from uplaod nightshots from this position if they have to look like your reedit to be accepted. Best greetings Rainer
Re: Multiple nightshot rejection
The origional photo is much better than the edited. While the origonal is how it was at the time of the pic being taken and the color we all know from being at an airport at night. Seems simple.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests