Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rejection / Editing advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 4 million screened photos online!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sebastian_Kissel View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sebastian_Kissel View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            hm okay thanks

            Comment


            • #21
              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
              JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 4 million screened photos online!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sebastian_Kissel View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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
                  Attached Files
                  JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 4 million screened photos online!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sebastian_Kissel View Post
                    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)
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by llpilch View Post

                      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)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sebastian_Kissel View Post

                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                            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

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X