Airliners.net

Hi all,

I've been posting images here for a little over a month. That's about ten images when you first start out because of the post limits and week long queue. My rejection rate is about 90% - every reason known to man. That's all cool - I'm a photographer and comfortable with my success as such. I sold my first pictures over 40 years ago and I still do - big ones. Although I have a trunk-full of high end Nikon hardware that I use for avian photography I shoot mostly 4x5 film. Why? Because I sell prints 5 feet across and digital is not up to that. My 4x5 images are 250 megapixels when scanned. But I digress...

Here's my latest rejection (one of two) - the reason: "contrast low, overuse of shadow/highlight or similar":

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._j1421159729.1778_dsc5330-1200.jpg

Well, I never use shadow/highlight. I know what it is, but If I needed to use it I would know that the image was already in trouble - I'm a get it right in the camera kind of person (think 4x5 film at $10.00 a shot). I do admit to getting the most light range in my images which might lead to what people regard is "low contrast", that's my creative choice and so be it.

I do that with filters for my film images, for digital I use "neutral mode" in picture control for RAW images. But, the most likely reason that I can think about here is that this image was made early in the morning with the Sun low in the sky, in crisp conditions and this might just have been overlooked by the screeners because this image had no overhead light. It's pure side and low angle light.

And you all say?

All the best!

Rejection reason makes sense to me. The site tends to like images where the blacks, areas like the underwing and gear, should be black. If you look at those areas in your picture, they have more of a grey appearance.

The idea of shadow/highlight tool usage was probably placed in the rejection due to the appearance of your underwing. It looks as though the shadow areas were reduced and are not as dark as they should be.

By a.net standards, the contrast is low. FWIW, the contrast is low by my standards too!

Exposure looks ok, so I would just adjust the black point.

Cheers
Angad

The contrast needs a big bump. It has the benefit of improving the colours as well.

More Contrast

Thanks all for the feedback.

scbriml - Wow that is a LOT of contrast and color. It's really punchy in a good way, but not what my eyes were seeing - especially the sky. And I guess that's the point - no camera sees what we see. We have to rely on tested filtering techniques for film and in post processing for digital. And there is the rub with digital, you have to develop a really good shot memory to make the final image match what your eyes saw at that moment, if not it's just personal taste - nothing wrong with that by the by. I like my shots real though. And so I take extra pains remember that moment, the color of the light, the color of the sky, etc., and over a lot of years I have become quite good at it.

Thanks again!

Little off topic, but I just looked at your website (posted in your profile). VERY neat shots sir!!