Steve Rinde - Advice & Pre-screening

[dlowwa]

Thanks, Dana. I suspected that dark/contrast issue.

Curious where you are seeing blurry? Soft could always be a potential, but I’m not seeing it blurry on this or the RAW file. Thanks again.

Tail & left side. Do you have a 100% crop? If that's not blurry, then all it might need is to have the sharpening re-worked.

[rindejr]

Aircraft is blurry. Would have been a dark/contrast rejection in any case.

Thanks, Dana. I suspected that dark/contrast issue.

Curious where you are seeing blurry? Soft could always be a potential, but I’m not seeing it blurry on this or the RAW file. Thanks again.

[dlowwa]

Advice needed - potential issue listed:

1) Contrast (this was a post-sunset blue hour shot with the blue being "intensified" with wildfire smoke in the air)

Any other areas of concern? Thanks in advance for your time and advice.

Aircraft is blurry. Would have been a dark/contrast rejection in any case.

[rindejr]

Advice needed - potential issue listed:

1) Contrast (this was a post-sunset blue hour shot with the blue being "intensified" with wildfire smoke in the air)

Any other areas of concern? Thanks in advance for your time and advice.

[dlowwa]

Rejection question: This photo was rejected for contrast issues ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9253185 ) however, I am stumped on if it should be more or less contrasted, because to me, by the histograms, it seems properly contrasted. The conditions were overcast. I would appeal it but don't want to use that too much.

I have had more contrast rejections lately, albeit in sub-prime lighting conditions, than typical. However, I did just have one overturned (my most recent upload, an AF 787) through appeal.

Any editing tips or advice welcomed! -Steve

Poor contrast due to overcast conditions. Aircraft is also somewhat blurry. As such, not fixable, sorry.

[rindejr]

I īm not screener, but as I see, it is lack of contrast. What you see in the histogram is the white tones of the clouds on the background.. the fuselage is grey. Keep in mind that most of the photos rejected as Too much or too little contrast are too little contrasted, and more if the photo was taken in poor light conditions. If you edit this photo properly the sky will get overexposed.

That makes sense. Thanks for the insight, Pablo!

[PabloGlez]

Rejection question: This photo was rejected for contrast issues ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9253185 ) however, I am stumped on if it should be more or less contrasted, because to me, by the histograms, it seems properly contrasted. The conditions were overcast. I would appeal it but don't want to use that too much.

I have had more contrast rejections lately, albeit in sub-prime lighting conditions, than typical. However, I did just have one overturned (my most recent upload, an AF 787) through appeal.

Any editing tips or advice welcomed! -Steve

I īm not screener, but as I see, it is lack of contrast. What you see in the histogram is the white tones of the clouds on the background.. the fuselage is grey. Keep in mind that most of the photos rejected as Too much or too little contrast are too little contrasted, and more if the photo was taken in poor light conditions. If you edit this photo properly the sky will get overexposed.

[rindejr]

Rejection question: This photo was rejected for contrast issues ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9253185 ) however, I am stumped on if it should be more or less contrasted, because to me, by the histograms, it seems properly contrasted. The conditions were overcast. I would appeal it but don't want to use that too much.

I have had more contrast rejections lately, albeit in sub-prime lighting conditions, than typical. However, I did just have one overturned (my most recent upload, an AF 787) through appeal.

Any editing tips or advice welcomed! -Steve

[dlowwa]

Rejection advice needed. Dark and contrast rejection. I’ve had many overcast shots with non-sky backgrounds accepted, and I know how to fix the under exposure. But what would you advice with the contrast? Thanks!

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8859500

Image was taken in very poor light. I don't think this can be fixed with editing.

[rindejr]

Rejection advice needed. Dark and contrast rejection. I’ve had many overcast shots with non-sky backgrounds accepted, and I know how to fix the under exposure. But what would you advice with the contrast? Thanks!

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8859500

[dlowwa]

Advice needed: clearly there are multiple immediate rejection reasons for this one judged by normal standards (backlit, centering, etc.). However, does this photo have a chance, or am I all kinds of crazy for even entertaining the idea? I won't be offended if the latter.

For the composition/motive...probably no? You'd probably get some who liked it, but most who didn't, my guess anyway. Bigger issue is it's pretty soft, and that glare of the top of the fuselage is distracting. I don't see what a slightly different/better version would necessarily be an automatic rejection.

[rindejr]

Advice needed: clearly there are multiple immediate rejection reasons for this one judged by normal standards (backlit, centering, etc.). However, does this photo have a chance, or am I all kinds of crazy for even entertaining the idea? I won't be offended if the latter.

[rindejr]

The 3:2 is close enough to acceptable, for me anyways. Not widely known fact: you can submit an image at any ratio between 4:3 and 16:9. It doesn't have to be exact. 1920x1120 would be totally fine, for example.

Ah! Thanks for the tidbit. I'll go with the 3:2, as 4:3 wouldn't work on this one since the plane is too close to the bottom of the frame.

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the input.

Would one of these two be more acceptable than the other for framing? Unfortunately, I can't bring the aircraft up any higher in the 3:2.

The 3:2 is close enough to acceptable, for me anyways. Not widely known fact: you can submit an image at any ratio between 4:3 and 16:9. It doesn't have to be exact. 1920x1120 would be totally fine, for example.

[rindejr]

1. yes, borderline dark. would be ok for me, but I could easily see someone else rejecting it for underexposed
2. also a bit dark, and yes, definitely too low in the frame.

3. visible side & tail completely in shadow, backlit rejection was justified. and yes, accepted one probably should have been rejected as well

Thanks for the input.

Would one of these two be more acceptable than the other for framing? Unfortunately, I can't bring the aircraft up any higher in the 3:2.