zhf21 - Prescreening Advice/Editing Advice

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=zhf21;n1155615]

I only reduced the contrast and sharpness slightly. I guess it wasn't enough. The contrast has now been reduced by another 20 and the sharpness has been increased by another 35.

Borderline oversharpened/contrast.

[zhf21]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1155622]

Borderline oversharpened/contrast.

Contrast too low or too high?

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=zhf21;n1155645]

Contrast too low or too high?

Neither. Weak light.

[zhf21]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1155688]

Neither. Weak light.

How would I fix that? Exposure? I'd appreciate some guidance.

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=zhf21;n1155692]

How would I fix that? Exposure? I'd appreciate some guidance.

Not something you can easily 'fix' after the fact. Next time try shooting in better lighting conditions.

[zhf21]

Would this photo of the new Terminal A at EWR be acceptable?

[dlowwa]

Would this photo of the new Terminal A at EWR be acceptable?

Automatic motive rejection.

[zhf21]

Automatic motive rejection.

Why? The photo highlights the sleek design of the airport’s new terminal. It also features the sign “Welcome to Terminal A.” The sign’s placement was intentional to indicate that this terminal is the start of a new EWR.

[ksaviation]

Why? The photo highlights the sleek design of the airport’s new terminal. It also features the sign “Welcome to Terminal A.” The sign’s placement was intentional to indicate that this terminal is the start of a new EWR.

Not a screener but I think because ppl face clearly at photo.

JP not have their permission post to internet , that’s mean will have “Bad Motive” reject.

[zhf21]

Not a screener but I think because ppl face clearly at photo.

JP not have their permission post to internet , that’s mean will have “Bad Motive” reject.

Thank you for the information. What if I blurred their faces?

[Julian S.]

Thank you for the information. What if I blurred their faces?

Hi,

blurrying faces isn't allowed at all and falls under manipulation. This causes sanctions if it is done repeatedly.
Why not try a natural "blurrying effect" by using longer exposures

[zhf21]

Hi,

blurrying faces isn't allowed at all and falls under manipulation. This causes sanctions if it is done repeatedly.
Why not try a natural "blurrying effect" by using longer exposures

Thanks for the reply. While I understand this would be manipulation, I struggle to see why that rule applies to faces. If editing a photo to create the same result as taking the photo in a longer exposure, why can't it be allowed? Nothing else is being changed. I get it if I were adding or removing things from the picture, but if it creates the exact same result, I fail to see the problem.

Not to mention, there is a clear inconsistency with the rules. I've seen countless photos in the database with faces visible. Here are just a few examples:

ZYHB | Airport | Terminal | StevenN | JetPhotos

ZGSZ | Airport | Terminal | UniverseLin | JetPhotos

KRIC | Airport | Terminal | FR24 | JetPhotos

[ksaviation]

Thank you for the information. What if I blurred their faces?

Will get “Digital Manipulation” reject and get warning
You can use tripod and longer exposures blur their faces.

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the reply. While I understand this would be manipulation, I struggle to see why that rule applies to faces. If editing a photo to create the same result as taking the photo in a longer exposure, why can't it be allowed? Nothing else is being changed. I get it if I were adding or removing things from the picture, but if it creates the exact same result, I fail to see the problem.

Not to mention, there is a clear inconsistency with the rules. I've seen countless photos in the database with faces visible. Here are just a few examples:

ZYHB | Airport | Terminal | StevenN | JetPhotos

ZGSZ | Airport | Terminal | UniverseLin | JetPhotos

KRIC | Airport | Terminal | FR24 | JetPhotos

In only one of those photos is a person's face easily identifiable, so there is no 'clear inconsistency', just an occasional error.