Latest one to get rejected. The reason:
"Reject reason: Yellow cast. dark contrast colour personal "
I did note on the comments:
"Captured on short final to 19R in the warm evening light just before sunset. Nikon D750, Sigma 70-200 F2.8. "
This image was not "colour" processed, it was as captured as is in auto white balance. It was sunset light at that time. I could have altered the white balance and made the airplane look white. I could have altered the contrast and darkness as well, but that would not be reality. The image is as real as it gets for digital captures. This is how the Speedbird looked as it flew by.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._i1425990188.6143_dsc0334-1200.jpg
Best,
JASPC
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting JASPC (Thread starter): dark contrast |
Maybe lighten up the shadows a little bit?
| Quoting JASPC (Thread starter): Yellow cast |
Doesn't look too yellow to me; at least I think it still looks whiter than this image which I shot at around sunset as well:
Photo © Yang Qize
Maybe try fixing the contrast without touching the colour balance, then reupload.
Cheers,
Yang Qize
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
I personally would not touch the color and leave a note to the screeners with an explanation to the situation. Also keep in mind a screener could have been looking at images shot where the fuselage was just a bright white on a deeper blue sky and that would cause this to have a cast appearance for that moment it was screened.
My feeling is boost the contrast a bit. The landing gear have a slight grey appearance to them
My feeling is boost the contrast a bit. The landing gear have a slight grey appearance to them
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
Contrast and exposure look perfectly fine as is.
Color is very subjective. It does look a bit unnaturally yellow to me - I'd expect evening light to have some more red in it. But it's not always that way.
I'd consider appealing.
Color is very subjective. It does look a bit unnaturally yellow to me - I'd expect evening light to have some more red in it. But it's not always that way.
I'd consider appealing.
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
Thanks all for your time and the kind suggestions. They are much appreciated. I rechecked my NEF (RAW) metadata and I was a bit in error. The shot was not made "just before sunset" (which I figured from memory), but more like 45-minutes before the actual sunset. This might be the reason why there is more of a yellowish light rather than a bit redder as it would be closer to sunset.
The NEF shows an auto white balance setting of 5209, which is very close to daylight white balance. Also, based on shots made of other aircraft before this one I had set my exposure at +1/2 EV to get the light peak in the middle of the histogram. Even so, the sky went darker than in the previous shots in the sequence of this same aircraft. I figure that this is because in this image the aircraft was much closer to the camera and filled almost the whole frame. That made the metering system compensate for the light on the white area of the fuselage, bringing the exposure back down.
Although I really like this image I'm still on the fence as to whether to appeal it. I don't like to imposition anyone, knowing how much work the screeners have to go through.
Thanks again!
JASPC
The NEF shows an auto white balance setting of 5209, which is very close to daylight white balance. Also, based on shots made of other aircraft before this one I had set my exposure at +1/2 EV to get the light peak in the middle of the histogram. Even so, the sky went darker than in the previous shots in the sequence of this same aircraft. I figure that this is because in this image the aircraft was much closer to the camera and filled almost the whole frame. That made the metering system compensate for the light on the white area of the fuselage, bringing the exposure back down.
Although I really like this image I'm still on the fence as to whether to appeal it. I don't like to imposition anyone, knowing how much work the screeners have to go through.
Thanks again!
JASPC
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting JASPC (Reply 4): I'm still on the fence as to whether to appeal it. I don't like to imposition anyone, knowing how much work the screeners have to go through. |
It's no trouble appealing - usually (when the emails are working and we screen the appeals several times a day) it is not much extra work. Some photographers appeal every rejection, and as soon as two appeals get processed they put another 2 in the queue. That is a pain.
In this case, I would appeal, the light looks great and I would add if I got in appeal.
Pete
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting alevik (Reply 5): It's no trouble appealing - usually (when the emails are working and we screen the appeals several times a day) it is not much extra work. Some photographers appeal every rejection, and as soon as two appeals get processed they put another 2 in the queue. That is a pain. In this case, I would appeal, the light looks great and I would add if I got in appeal. Pete |
Thanks Pete, I will put in the appeal queue tomorrow.
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
I think this rejection is a bit silly. Essentially, you're being instructed to remove colors seen by the naked eye. I've taken plenty of photos at LAX with the sun low on the horizon. I guess this means every single image taken during the golden hour is subject to rejection. Professional photographers prefer shooting shiny objects like cars and airplanes during the golden hour because of soft shadows and the warm glow of the setting sun.
The same overlords who reject cloned grass want to force a pure white correction onto the subject of the image. No fake grass, but get rid of that naturally occurring yellow cast!
Hey, what if the paint on that airplane is a few years old and has been yellowed by sun exposure? Make it white!
I think before a photo is rejected for a color cast, the moderator must find the exact color code used on that aircraft. Are you sure that white is #ffffff?
I submitted a photo years ago and got it accepted. I just submitted a second and I'm already questioning my registration on this site.
At the very least, the judges should be forced to post galleries of their superior photography.
The same overlords who reject cloned grass want to force a pure white correction onto the subject of the image. No fake grass, but get rid of that naturally occurring yellow cast!
Hey, what if the paint on that airplane is a few years old and has been yellowed by sun exposure? Make it white!
I think before a photo is rejected for a color cast, the moderator must find the exact color code used on that aircraft. Are you sure that white is #ffffff?
I submitted a photo years ago and got it accepted. I just submitted a second and I'm already questioning my registration on this site.
At the very least, the judges should be forced to post galleries of their superior photography.
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting X1 (Reply 7): |
Dude, chill. You may have missed the part where a Head Screener said:
| Quoting alevik (Reply 5): In this case, I would appeal, the light looks great and I would add if I got in appeal. |
That aside, go through my photos at your leisure. Probably 50% of them are taken in the evening, in varying shades of red + yellow light. And yet somehow, they get accepted.....
Anyway, if you're getting frustrated over a single rejection, I don't know what to tell you. I've had hundreds of rejections, as have many others.
[Edited 2015-04-01 18:32:01]
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8): Dude, chill. You may have missed the part where a Head Screener said: |
Dude? Chill? Educated people use those words? You should read my post carefully. So far, I've submitted one photo and it's been accepted. My second submission hasn't been processed. There is no evidence of frustration in my post. It was simply a commentary on what I consider to be a petty reason for rejection.
I'm beginning think the "screeners" get off on rejecting images. I also find the notion of appealing a rejection idiotic.
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting X1 (Reply 9): Dude? Chill? Educated people use those words? |
I never claimed to be educated!
| Quoting X1 (Reply 9): There is no evidence of frustration in my post. |
Evidence (with emphasis added on certain key words):
| Quoting X1 (Reply 7): I'm already questioning my registration on this site. |
| Quoting X1 (Reply 7): At the very least, the judges should be forced to post galleries of their superior photography. |
| Quoting X1 (Reply 7): The same overlords who reject cloned grass want to force a pure white correction onto the subject of the image. No fake grass, but get rid of that naturally occurring yellow cast! |
| Quoting X1 (Reply 7): Hey, what if the paint on that airplane is a few years old and has been yellowed by sun exposure? Make it white! |
Hey, if you say you're not frustrated, I can only take you at your word. But I've seen countless - I mean probably hundreds - of posts just like yours from frustrated uploaders.
So I guess if you're not frustrated, why are you complaining? What's the point of complaining about someone else's rejection that a head screener has already said would be accepted on appeal?
| Quoting X1 (Reply 9): I also find the notion of appealing a rejection idiotic. |
Then don't appeal, I suppose.
Anyway, no offense intended with any of this. And I won't take offense at your implying I'm uneducated.
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting X1 (Reply 9): I'm beginning think the "screeners" get off on rejecting images. |
I can assure you that isn't the case - the default position is "Is there any reason I can't accept this shot?"
| Quoting X1 (Reply 9): I also find the notion of appealing a rejection idiotic. |
Why? Screeners are human and sometimes they make mistakes. If there was no point in appealing a rejection, the option wouldn't be there.
Per alevik's comment, some idiot photographers instantly appeal all their rejections, which is just stupid. In my experience, in the vast majority of rejections the screeners are spot on.
That said, this shot was rejected for motive and accepted on appeal (that the obstruction was unavoidable) just this week. So not idiotic IMHO:
Photo © Steve Brimley
RE: Post Screening - Speedbird Gviip
| Quoting X1 (Reply 7): At the very least, the judges should be forced to post galleries of their superior photography. |
Incredibly easy to find screeners images, but I'll help you out with mine:
https://www.airliners.net/search/phot...rt_order=views&distinct_entry=true
Now, how about posting your two amazing images for all of us to see?
| Quoting X1 (Reply 9): I'm beginning think the "screeners" get off on rejecting images. I also find the notion of appealing a rejection idiotic. |
With all this talk about education, I'd have thought there might be more reasoning, but I'm just not seeing it.
For someone with one accepted image and another one in screening, your attitude towards the site and the screeners is quite disproportionate to your experience with the site.
Pete
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests