Dark/underexposed?

[Joop]

Dear all,

I would like to have your feedback on this one:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1295133

The reasons for rejection are:
dark/underexposed
missing part of subject

Both reasons I don't agree and don't understand.
I appealed and the appeal was rejected with the comment I should check the histogram.
Can someone explain me how to read the histogram?
Furhtermore I would like to understand what the criteria are to reject a photo because of 'missing part of subject'. There are loads of pics like this in the database so I don't understand what'w wrong with this one.

On the contrary, this one was accepted:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5906210.
Why was the first one rejected and this one not?

I believe it's a very nice shot, not because it's mine but because of the light , the sun that reflects on the fuselage and the wing and the composition.

Thanks in advance for your, constructive, feedback.

Kind regards,
Joop

[Simpleboy]

I would say the cut off/missing refers to the landing gear.
As to dark, looking at the histogram (ctrl for levels which shows it), it shows that the majority of the photos is very dark (big spikes on the left of the histogram), i adjusted the exposure to +1.2 and added +5 for contrast and came up with this.



The version i have shown is how i would crop if you dont have all of the wheel in the original.

[Joop]

Thanks for your feedback!

[Greg Wilson]

Underexposed......utter garbage.
Dark....but maybe that was the actual light conditions...........and only the photographer knows that.

[Joop]

Underexposed......utter garbage.
Dark....but maybe that was the actual light conditions...........and only the photographer knows that.

I'm glad I am not the only one... I believe light conditions were quite good. Sun in the back, sometimes covered by some clouds. Some dark sky in the background sometimes.
But that's what I meant about the hologram. Is what a hologram leading.
Shouldn't one look to the actual picture itself?

A dark background doesn't always mean a pic is underexposed, does it?

[cja]

I'm glad I am not the only one... I believe light conditions were quite good. Sun in the back, sometimes covered by some clouds. Some dark sky in the background sometimes.
But that's what I meant about the hologram. Is what a hologram leading.
Shouldn't one look to the actual picture itself?

A dark background doesn't always mean a pic is underexposed, does it?

What adjustments did you make in levels/curves when you were editing the shot. There is a lot of glare in the original which looks as if it might have been toned down with the result being a darker image than otherwise may have been expected for a daytime(?) shot. Why not post the original unedited file so a better, more informed judgement can be made.

[Joop]

What adjustments did you make in levels/curves when you were editing the shot. There is a lot of glare in the original which looks as if it might have been toned down with the result being a darker image than otherwise may have been expected for a daytime(?) shot. Why not post the original unedited file so better a more informed judgement can be made.

The only adjustments I made was that I used the Unsharp Mask.
If i remember well, the photo was made at approx. 1pm.

[cja]

Joop
In that case I would agree that the image is too dark considering that the aircraft was in bright sunlight, Ok its winter but it should still be brighter. Simpleboys version is therfore probably more realistic.
My guess is that your camera compensated for the glare on the body leaving the rest looking dark. However without seeing any EXIF data it is just a guess and others may disagree.

By the way, Its still a nice picture.

[magic48]

However without seeing any EXIF data it is just a guess and others may disagree.

The EXIF shows that exposure time was 1/640 at an aperture of F8. Exposure compensation was set at +0.0. That certainly doesn't account for the shot being underexposed, if you ask me.

[LX-A343]

Underexposed......utter garbage.
Dark....but maybe that was the actual light conditions...........and only the photographer knows that.

Sun in the back, sometimes covered by some clouds. Some dark sky in the background sometimes.
But that's what I meant about the hologram. Is what a hologram leading.

OK, we have "sun, sometimes covered by some clouds. Some dark sky in the background sometimes". Then I see 1/640, F8.0, ISO 100. Let me guess: Camera set to Auto, AV or TV, exp. comp = "0". The camera is fooled by the reflection and underexposes the photo. Still utter garbage?

[Joop]

OK, we have "sun, sometimes covered by some clouds. Some dark sky in the background sometimes". Then I see 1/640, F8.0, ISO 100. Let me guess: Camera set to Auto, AV or TV, exp. comp = "0". The camera is fooled by the reflection and underexposes the photo. Still utter garbage?

Camera was set to P. White Balance was put to Auto. No further special settings to camera or adjustments made with Photoshop other then described above.

[cja]

Still utter garbage?

Not in my view.

Perhaps you could argue that the shot should have been exposed at +1/3. These winter conditions are perhaps a good example of when to try bracketing your pictures.

[LX-A343]

Camera was set to P.

End of discussion. A camera's light meter always tries to interpret the scene as if it would meter an 18% grey card. "P" is the absolute worse you could do in such a situation, heck ... make it "in any situation". OK, make it 2nd worse, as you still go to "M" and genuinely screw up the settings.

Your camera got fooled by the huge amount o grey and above all the streaking reflection. Every photog should know by now, that different scenes require different exc comp settings, or better, try a light meter. I bought one and usually cross check the camera or use the camera in manual mode.

[Joop]

Thanks to all for your feedback.

I'll try different settings.

cheers,
Joop

[Joop]

Dear all,

I tried to make the picture a bit lighter and did something about the cropping.
No further adjustments were made and uploaded it again.

Guess what: rejected because it is too soft ...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1297751

When you make a picture lighter can/does that have an impact on the sharpness and is there anything to prevent it?

Thanks in advance fro your feedback.

Joop