Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Underexposed?

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

  • B7772ADL
    replied
    Those are good for me mate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Manc
    replied
    I gather the senior screener was in a bad mood heres the updated versions
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868261
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868267

    Leave a comment:


  • B7772ADL
    replied
    Sam's edit on the right hand side is where i'd be aiming for. You're right to under-expose a little in order not to blow out the fuselage, and use your editing prog to boost the levels afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Agreed, it's a borderline rejection. Now, you can of course appeal and hope, the senior screener is in a good mood , or go for a re-edit as proposed above. Work on the levels to get more details in the shadows, without touching too much the highlights.

    Gerardo

    Leave a comment:


  • RingwaySam
    replied
    Originally posted by Manc
    yeah fair enuff, I was just concerned of blowing out the light fuselage, I'll re-edit
    Nah you should be alright. Better off asking a screener rather than me though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Manc
    replied
    yeah fair enuff, I was just concerned of blowing out the light fuselage, I'll re-edit

    Leave a comment:


  • RingwaySam
    replied
    IMO I would go for something like this





    All I did was adjust the levels abit more.
    Last edited by RingwaySam; 2006-03-13, 18:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Manc
    started a topic Underexposed?

    Underexposed?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=866221 OK I think I agree (just really here to compare with the one below)
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=866215 Not sure I agree worth appealing or just shut up and re-edit?
Working...
X