Backlit or not?

[pianisthuy]

I have these photos rejected because of backlit. But sorry I didn't see that
I took these shoot in Spotting location in Domodedovo(Moscow) in the morning, the sun is in the left of aircraft, so how can I get the backlit photos?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2138524

After appeal I got this message:"Bring the levels up on this shot as well"???

anh this one

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2138539

So how can I do now?

[RingwaySam]

Seems harsh in my opinion but im not a screener. Saying that, the first photo is dark so maybe the screener made a mistake. I can see where you're coming from though as I can see the sun on the nose. If you just add some levels like the appeal rejection said it should be acceptable perfectly acceptable -



Just try messing around with the levels/curves and see which one you feel more comfortable with. You can use both if you wish, but curves is a great tool.

[Top_Gun]

the first one I would think if you lightened it up you could save it. The second one, the sky looks blown out which may be where they think it's backlit?

I like the first shot

[ATFS_Crash]

Unless you guys use a different definition for backlit for digital photography, as the evidence seems to show it is not backlit. (as RingwaySam pointed out the light source/sun seems to be on the same side as the camera as reflection/glare off the nose seems to indicate)

The photo does look a little drab/low contrast however I think that reflected the reality. It looks like it was an overcast day and or possibly near sunrise or sunset.

Even if it was backlit, I wouldn’t consider it a legitimate form of rejection. ( Perhaps there is some reason that these standards are set) Professional photographers deliberately backlight some photographs to make them more artsy and to give them more character. Sometimes backlighting can turn a boring sterile technical photo into a wall hanger.

When I first started in photography I used head-on lighting and fully symmetrical centered subjects photography for most of my shots (of course that is my opinion as a photographer and an artist (They looked technical, but it seemed sterile, boring and monotonous.). My father taught me that in many cases it is good to deliberately put the main subject off-center or to use special composition to enhance or bring out special qualities/personalities/details in a shot to make the photograph more unique and artsy; rather than the same old manufactured looking type of photography. In some cases, I think it is very artsy and creative to shoot photography from extreme perspectives and light conditions . I learned that the use of shadows, and contrast is in itself an art form.

Seems that backlighting is not allowed. So I guess by these rules that artistic photography like silhouettes and aircraft with sunsets would automatically be rejected. I think that’s pathetic.


The Art Of Backlighting

http://www.tutorialized.com/view/tutorial/Backlighting-Techniques-in-Digital-Photography/15242

One of the best aircraft photos/slides I’ve ever shot was all of a P-61 black widow using Kodachrome 64 and available lighting ( on a tripod at a very long exposure/ several seconds). The lighting was some sort of weird metal gas vapor lamps, that had kind of a weird yellow-green glow. The Black Widow had just been restored in black with a very high gloss finish (she was immaculate). The lighting made it very sinister looking. The glare off the high gloss finish was great, it looked like some religious paintings of Jesus’s birth. Yet the weird colored light made it look almost sinister. In some ways it looked almost angelic, in other ways it looked very sinister. The way parts of the aircraft was hidden by shadows/backlighting seemed to give the point that it was a night fighter that could hide in the shadows.

One of the most impressive photographs I’ve seen of the B-2 Spirit was one that I didn’t realize the B-2 was in until after it was noted. The B-2 was flying down a valley near sunrise or sunset, the Valley was in the shadow and the B-2 was extremely difficult to see, unless you knew it was there, then it was somewhat obvious (to an aviation aficionado). Until the artist said there was a B-2 and the photograph, I thought it was just an artistic photograph of a mountain range at sunset or sunrise. Even after I was told there was a B-2 and the photograph it took me a minute or two to find it, then it seemed so obvious. That photograph made a big impression on me. Much like the P-61 slide that I took, the way the B-2 was photographed made it look impressively stealthy.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

As Sam pointed it very clearly, those shots can be improved to the database standarts. But you are right. they are not backlit. (knowing the spot myself, if you took the shots before 11am there's no way it could be backlit)

Cheers
Alex

[BA747-436]

I think in many cases, poor lighting conditions can often be misinterpreted as being backlit.

[Michael Wolf]

Dark, yes, but not backlit for sure. They just need some more editing.

[cja]

AFTS

You make some very interesting and valid points. JPNet has always tried to accommodate the Artistic as far as is possible.

The main issue is always the question of what is acceptable and what is not. As a Professional you will know that the opinions of two “qualified” judges on the same piece of work are likely to vary considerably. When it comes to such judgement calls then the same will apply to screeners. Some that love the artistic qualities of a particular shot will find that their colleagues are less than impressed. So in order avoid endless complaints about rejections on the basis that one rejection is very similar to another shot that has been accepted, we have to adopt common standards as far as we can in order to ensure consistency. Sadly this means that a shot that might be judged to be worthy in a photo competition might just be rejected here because it breaks the basic rules.

At least we have an appeals procedure and a three vote system on each photo to introduce a balanced and more flexible approach. One thing you can be sure of is that we look for reasons to accept a shot and not the other way around! If you browse the database I am sure you will see many examples that bear this out. This includes shots which are backlit and where the back lighting has been used to good effect.

[Brenden S]

The 2 reject boxes are pretty well rather close together. I have on a odd occasion ticked a incorrect box for a rejection.

[LX-A343]

Back light generally leads to a rejection. Exceptions are made for photos, where the back light adds some value to the photo, be it for showing interesting reflections or sunset contrast shots, as shown multiple times in our db. I think that’s not pathetic.

[brianw999]

Putting aside the backlit reject reason for now ( which I must say I do not personally agree with in these two cases ) these two shots are a clear example of a photographer not checking the histogram as a part of their processing workflow.

OK, the histogram does not ALWAYS tell the truth but 99% of the time it does....and here it clearly shows both pics as being dark/underexposed.

Now...add in the fact that the light seems to be coming from 90 degrees left and a backlit rejection is not unreasonable.

[arjenp]

If a part of the nose/tail has some shadow(but the rest of the plane not) can you see that as a backlit photo?

Arjen

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Arjen,
Wouldn't be backlit for me ... but clearly soft and blurry

[arjenp]

Arjen,
Wouldn't be backlit for me ... but clearly soft and blurry

I don't no why, but this photo is very different than what I have on my computer