Sebastian Sainio - Editing advice

[Sebastian Sainio]

Hi! I have recently had a lot of seemingly irrational rejections I’d like to get some feedback about. I’ve been uploading photos to JetPhotos since 2017 and the acceptance rate seems to be pretty much the same since I started. I’d like to hear your opinion about the following photos:

Finnair A350 rejected for ”bad post-processing”. Any thoughts about what is so ”bad” here?


DHL A300 rejected for "bad post-processing” and ”underexposed”. Both I disagree with, especially the claim that this photo would be underexposed.


This UPS 767 was initially rejected for ”bad post-processing” but accepted after an appeal. Any thoughts why it was rejected in the first place?


With best regards, Sebastian

[TRTPUwU]

Editing halos on the first and second, and the second is also a tad underexposed, but it should be easy to fix. Rejections are valid. In the third the halos are less prominent but i still see some, so that is why it was rejected the first time.

[jakerepp]

My honest impression is that you used too much contrast/saturation. The colors on Finnair and DHL photos don't look natural.

[dlowwa]

Hi! I have recently had a lot of seemingly irrational rejections I’d like to get some feedback about. I’ve been uploading photos to JetPhotos since 2017 and the acceptance rate seems to be pretty much the same since I started. I’d like to hear your opinion about the following photos:

Finnair A350 rejected for ”bad post-processing”. Any thoughts about what is so ”bad” here?

Pretty obvious editing halos. No strong shadows anywhere on the aircraft either, pretty indicative of over-editing.

DHL A300 rejected for "bad post-processing” and ”underexposed”. Both I disagree with, especially the claim that this photo would be underexposed.

Slightly oversaturated.

I would have rejected the UPS on appeal (it's worse than the DHL), so I think you got a bit lucky there.

[Sebastian Sainio]

Thanks for your replies. Could you point out where you see the editing halos? I have a really hard time seeing anything (even in the equalized photos) except a very faint edge around the tail of the DHL. I re-edited that a bit removing some texture settings which I think caused that edge. I did not add any extra exposure except trying to lift the midtones a bit because I think it looks good as it is and putting more exposure adjustment on it would just make the sky look blown-out. What do you think?

To be honest I think the style of my editing is a bit out of the scope or taste of this site, so I’ll leave the Finnair shot out of this because it required some more editing to get it to the look I wanted.

[dlowwa]

Thanks for your replies. Could you point out where you see the editing halos? I have a really hard time seeing anything (even in the equalized photos) except a very faint edge around the tail of the DHL.

Around the edges of the aircraft: sky is darker next to bright areas and lighter next to darker areas..though the whole sky has obviously been darkened as you admit.

DHL is still oversaturated, imho.

I re-edited that a bit removing some texture settings which I think caused that edge. I did not add any extra exposure except trying to lift the midtones a bit because I think it looks good as it is and putting more exposure adjustment on it would just make the sky look blown-out. What do you think?

->

To be honest I think the style of my editing is a bit out of the scope or taste of this site

I think that pretty much sums it up accurately. We tend to prefer a more natural look as the site was founded as a DB, so while your edits may be more aesthetically pleasing for some, they may push the boundaries of what we might consider acceptable.

[Sebastian Sainio]

Around the edges of the aircraft: sky is darker next to bright areas and lighter next to darker areas..though the whole sky has obviously been darkened as you admit.

DHL is still oversaturated, imho.



->



I think that pretty much sums it up accurately. We tend to prefer a more natural look as the site was founded as a DB, so while your edits may be more aesthetically pleasing for some, they may push the boundaries of what we might consider acceptable.

Thanks for your reply Dana! Yeah, I understand you prefer more unedited shots to this site so I’ll try to make sure I do the post-process a bit different for the JP photos I add to the screening queue and might concentrate on mostly documentary (non-artistic) shots of for example pictures of new registrations and rare types.

I did a slightly blander edit of the DHL which I thinks looks ok, but can you point out if there are still any halos here that would cause a rejection? Contrast ok?


And whilst I am at it I might as well ask I you are interested in more artistic shots like this one? I guess it should be uploaded as a runway shot because the aircraft doesn’t fill much of the frame.

[dlowwa]

Thanks for your reply Dana! Yeah, I understand you prefer more unedited shots to this site so I’ll try to make sure I do the post-process a bit different for the JP photos I add to the screening queue and might concentrate on mostly documentary (non-artistic) shots of for example pictures of new registrations and rare types.

Both oversaturated and halos still visible on first.

[Sebastian Sainio]

Both oversaturated and halos still visible on first.

I really don’t see anything wrong with these photos. And as far as the ”halos” on the DHL shot are concerned, I’m not really sure what you are talking about. I ran it through GIMP and equalized it and the only thing I can find is that slightly darker stuff around the belly of the aircraft. Totally invisible in the plain photo. If this really is why you reject photos then that is just silly. Have a look at all the color-banding in the sky. Nothing is perfect. Every digital image has a degree of artifacts in it. There is apparently no way to edit most shots with sky in the background not to have these very faint ”halos”. Or you would have to basically leave them un-edited.


I guess there is only one question I have to ask: Should I really bother to upload anything to JetPhotos if some particular screener thinks my photos doesn’t match their preferred ”style”? If one screener accepted the UPS shot and you would have rejected it, it means there is also controversy inside JP crew of what should be accepted on this site. Shouldn’t all photos be screened equally? Would you have rejected this shot for example?: http://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11016618

[dlowwa]

I really don’t see anything wrong with these photos. And as far as the ”halos” on the DHL shot are concerned, I’m not really sure what you are talking about. I ran it through GIMP and equalized it and the only thing I can find is that slightly darker stuff around the belly of the aircraft. Totally invisible in the plain photo. If this really is why you reject photos then that is just silly. Have a look at all the color-banding in the sky. Nothing is perfect. Every digital image has a degree of artifacts in it. There is apparently no way to edit most shots with sky in the background not to have these very faint ”halos”. Or you would have to basically leave them un-edited.


I guess there is only one question I have to ask: Should I really bother to upload anything to JetPhotos if some particular screener thinks my photos doesn’t match their preferred ”style”? If one screener accepted the UPS shot and you would have rejected it, it means there is also controversy inside JP crew of what should be accepted on this site. Shouldn’t all photos be screened equally? Would you have rejected this shot for example?: http://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11016618

I think I'll refrain from responding to this thread. Anyone else is welcome to reply.

[Sebastian Sainio]

I really enjoy the community and the comprehensive database of shots here on JP. I’d certainly like to continue uploading shots here, but with so many rejections all the time I just can’t find the motivation to keep trying. I’ve been advancing my post-processing skills over the last seven years, however I still have no idea how to make shots with sky in the background halo free. If anyone here would be able to give some advice on post-processing, that would be very appreciated. I could also try to send some Raw files for you guys to play around with, to try to figure out if there is any kind of optimal post-processing formula for getting ”JP-quality” shots out of the pictures I've taken. I use Lightroom nowadays to process my shots.

Happy spotting guys!

[JoyViation62]

I have learned that simpler is usually better. Try keeping your edits to the bare essentials needed to make it look nice, and avoid things like highlights, shadows, hue saturation, texture, clarity, or dehaze. It should help with avoiding the halos.

[jakerepp]

I really enjoy the community and the comprehensive database of shots here on JP. I’d certainly like to continue uploading shots here, but with so many rejections all the time I just can’t find the motivation to keep trying. I’ve been advancing my post-processing skills over the last seven years, however I still have no idea how to make shots with sky in the background halo free. If anyone here would be able to give some advice on post-processing, that would be very appreciated. I could also try to send some Raw files for you guys to play around with, to try to figure out if there is any kind of optimal post-processing formula for getting ”JP-quality” shots out of the pictures I've taken. I use Lightroom nowadays to process my shots.

Happy spotting guys!

Feel free to send me some RAW files. I am at ~89% acceptance and close to 1200 photos. I think I've had two rejections for halos, and one of those was a weird one because I did nothing but sharpening and NR, but there was a halo emanating off of a building. I chose a different frame and it was fine.

I use Lightroom as well and typically just add a tiny amount of contrast, and then sharpening and NR. You can DM me and I'll give you my email address if you'd like, and I'll edit with my typical workflow (which honestly, I'll spend 30 seconds to a minute to editing a well lit photo. I don't spend a lot of time on it).

[Sebastian Sainio]

Feel free to send me some RAW files. I am at ~89% acceptance and close to 1200 photos. I think I've had two rejections for halos, and one of those was a weird one because I did nothing but sharpening and NR, but there was a halo emanating off of a building. I chose a different frame and it was fine.

I use Lightroom as well and typically just add a tiny amount of contrast, and then sharpening and NR. You can DM me and I'll give you my email address if you'd like, and I'll edit with my typical workflow (which honestly, I'll spend 30 seconds to a minute to editing a well lit photo. I don't spend a lot of time on it).

Thanks for the reply! Sorry for not checking up on this thread lately. I can definitely send you the DHL and Finnair shown here if you are interested in trying out editing on those. My personal opinion is that nearly unedited shots usually look dull and boring and that’s just not my kind of photography. You almost always have to edit the shots from ”a blank slate” to get things to look right. The biggest issue I have as far as rejections go here on JP has been halos. Photos that have ground or trees in the background get easily accepted, however the exact same edit with photos that have blank sky in the background tend to get rejected.

I see a lot of nicely edited shots here all the time, so it’s definitely not about ”doing as little editing as possible” but rather about doing the required amount of editing that makes a shot look good. Some shots I have displayed here on my JP profile have more editing done to them than others, but you can’t see that because editing shouldn’t be obvious. But then again this isn't my own website and I can't control what other people think is a good edit.