Editing advice for Sebastian_Kissel

[Sebastian_Kissel]

hey i once again ask for your help:

i agree with oversharpen reject but i do not know why this is bad postprocessing as the sky on this particular day was that dark.
so maybe you can help me with that

Cheers Sebastian

[dlowwa]

hey i once again ask for your help:

i agree with oversharpen reject but i do not know why this is bad postprocessing as the sky on this particular day was that dark.
so maybe you can help me with that

Cheers Sebastian

I can see why someone might have thought it was a bit overprocessed, but if you're saying it's not, I'd be happy to take a look at the original and if that is indeed the case perhaps authorize an appeal. Let me know.

[Sebastian_Kissel]

sure no Problem

thats a screenshot from Lightroom so you can see the original and the edit one

I added a bit of contrast and saturtion thats it

[dlowwa]

sure no Problem

thats a screenshot from Lightroom so you can see the original and the edit one

I added a bit of contrast and saturtion thats it

Yes, that does qualify as overprocessed Original rejection was correct, please don't appeal.

[Sebastian_Kissel]

hm okay thanks

[Sebastian_Kissel]

Hello

first of all I accept the rejection of the photo as i did not remove the dusty part properly (so that’s my fault).

But the screener comment is in my opinion totally overreacted.
this was my FIRST rejection with this reason and then threatening with a comment which said „may result in future consequences“ is not gentle!
i hope the screener may get in touch for an apologise thanks

[dlowwa]

Hello

first of all I accept the rejection of the photo as i did not remove the dusty part properly (so that’s my fault).

But the screener comment is in my opinion totally overreacted.
this was my FIRST rejection with this reason and then threatening with a comment which said „may result in future consequences“ is not gentle!
i hope the screener may get in touch for an apologise thanks

Your apology is accepted. Please be very careful when removing dust in such a manner, as it may appear you have removed a pole/fence from the frame, which is of course forbidden.

The comments were just to properly warn you in case you were again careless in the future there would be further consequences. If you don't submit images with such poor editing in the future, there is nothing to worry about on your part.

[Sebastian_Kissel]

hello
i once again ask for your help as i cant see any clear hints for overprocessing in this image.
the before and after version is attached.

Cheers Sebastian

[llpilch]

hello
i once again ask for your help as i cant see any clear hints for overprocessing in this image.
the before and after version is attached.

Cheers Sebastian

I'm not screener, but take a look at the halos on the sky. click the "check for dust" option, then you'll see the equalized image (attached)

[Sebastian_Kissel]

I'm not screener, but take a look at the halos on the sky. click the "check for dust" option, then you'll see the equalized image (attached)

thanks i saw them, but you dont see them in the normal picture.
basically i dont know where they come frome as i dont move the highlights lever (normally this lever creats the halos)

i just checked the original one unedit, just moved the dust remove to 100% and there are the halos as well, so it is a camera factor, not an editing one (quite often within nikon cameras)

[llpilch]

On lightroom, this halos are created by the function Highlights, Shadows, and also the "clarity". If in excess, the "dehaze" can also produce halos.

On your picture, comparing the after and before, I see two big things you did on post processing: you have improved the exposure of the clear areas, which is ok, but you have also changed something in the sky, i think saturation or/and the hue of the sky, and that's the origin of the halos.

It's normal that when you change something in an especific part of the image, it will create halos on the transition to the unaltered parts of the image


If it is visible or not on the normal image is another discussion, but the screeners WILL apply the equalize and if it shows dust spots, halos or vignetes that aren't visible on normal image, yes, it will be rejected

[dlowwa]

thanks i saw them, but you dont see them in the normal picture.
basically i dont know where they come frome as i dont move the highlights lever (normally this lever creats the halos)

i just checked the original one unedit, just moved the dust remove to 100% and there are the halos as well, so it is a camera factor, not an editing one (quite often within nikon cameras)

Don't need to equalize the image to see that the treeline is glowing. Since the trees don't emit light themselves, it's definitely something you are doing -> overprocessed rejection.

[Sebastian_Kissel]

Don't need to equalize the image to see that the treeline is glowing. Since the trees don't emit light themselves, it's definitely something you are doing -> overprocessed rejection.

ok thank you

[Sebastian_Kissel]

hey i need a prescreening advise reagarding framing.
centering the aircraft would leed to a cut off of the water salute.
so is this framing accaptable?

[dlowwa]

hey i need a prescreening advise reagarding framing.
centering the aircraft would leed to a cut off of the water salute.
so is this framing accaptable?

A bit low in the frame and one of the fire trucks is obstructed.