wkd001- Editing advice

[dlowwa]

OK, thanks Dana.
But is it too harsh for reject here?

Well, it was rejected so apparently yes.

So I could maybe reduce the contrast here,but for sure I would have to blow out the highlights in that case.
Sorry for maybe annoying here, but please let the screeners be very specific in this kind of cases, as this is not the first time, this happens.

Not sure what you are asking (if anything).

[wkd001]

Well, it was rejected so apparently yes.



Not sure what you are asking (if anything).

That screeners will be as specific as possible with their reject reasons, because apparently the wrong reason was given here and it's not the first time, I get confused on a reject.
And if you agree with this reject, as I don't. So I'm still considering appealing on this one.

[dlowwa]

That screeners will be as specific as possible with their reject reasons, because apparently the wrong reason was given here and it's not the first time, I get confused on a reject.

They can't really be more specific if they're giving the wrong reason, can they? Maybe you meant to say please reject for the correct reasons? In that case, keep in mind the above opinion (contrast problem rather than exposure problem) is only my opinion, and others may in fact agree that the image is too dark.

[wkd001]

They can't really be more specific if they're giving the wrong reason, can they? Maybe you meant to say please reject for the correct reasons? In that case, keep in mind the above opinion (contrast problem rather than exposure problem) is only my opinion, and others may in fact agree that the image is too dark.

Yes, I meant indeed please reject for the right reasons. My apologies for the misunderstanding. And also for the long discuss, as I didnt want to get rude or unpolite, but went too difficult in making my point.

[dlowwa]

Yes, I meant indeed please reject for the right reasons. My apologies for the misunderstanding. And also for the long discuss, as I didnt want to get rude or unpolite, but went too difficult in making my point.

That's fine, I'm not going to stop you from venting your frustrations, as long as you understand that my opinion is just that, and needs to be weighed against the crew as a whole

[wkd001]

That's fine, I'm not going to stop you from venting your frustrations, as long as you understand that my opinion is just that, and needs to be weighed against the crew as a whole

Dana, Of course I understand your opinion is just that and there is also screeners discretion and also discuss between crew.. The little difficult here it got only more distracting for me here...
Anyway.. Time to move on now and I've tried to turn something negative into something positive now.
I reworked another snap form this particular aircraft. and tried to combine the reject note and your comments on it.
Took off some contrast and added some exposure and now I would like a prescreen on it.

Just an extra look on contrast and exposure here would be great.
And aso for sharpness, horizon and dirt here.

Thanks in advance and regards

[dlowwa]

Dana, Of course I understand your opinion is just that and there is also screeners discretion and also discuss between crew.. The little difficult here it got only more distracting for me here...
Anyway.. Time to move on now and I've tried to turn something negative into something positive now.
I reworked another snap form this particular aircraft. and tried to combine the reject note and your comments on it.
Took off some contrast and added some exposure and now I would like a prescreen on it.

Just an extra look on contrast and exposure here would be great.
And aso for sharpness, horizon and dirt here.

Thanks in advance and regards

Fine for me, but I could see some as thinking it a bit too dark.

[wkd001]

Fine for me, but I could see some as thinking it a bit too dark.

Thank you for that Dana.

With a very tiny bit more exposurere at the end it got accepted.

Today I received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9970014# for I think too much contrast.
I disagree on this one, as the details are visible as much as possible and the light is not that harsh imho.
Is this one worth an appeal, or should I just try to lower something as far as possilbe, without running into other potential issues (dark/exposure)

At second i would like a prescreen of this image.

I liked this one, but personally I think it's too soft and compression and contrast could also be issues.

Thanks in advance and regards

[dlowwa]

Thank you for that Dana.

With a very tiny bit more exposurere at the end it got accepted.

Today I received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9970014# for I think too much contrast.
I disagree on this one, as the details are visible as much as possible and the light is not that harsh imho.
Is this one worth an appeal, or should I just try to lower something as far as possilbe, without running into other potential issues (dark/exposure)

Would have been ok for me, but couldn't guarantee a successful appeal.

At second i would like a prescreen of this image.

Soft, dark, and a bit noisy/compressed.

[wkd001]

Would have been ok for me, but couldn't guarantee a successful appeal.



Soft, dark, and a bit noisy/compressed.

Thanks for both Dana,

Yesterday I received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9986343. for underexposed.
If I see the histogram here , I don't really understand that, as to histogram is fully stretched here.
Also adding more exposure would blow out some parts of the aircraft imho.
Though I could inderstand contrast being an issue here, as it's also partially backlit on the tail.
How do I have to understand this one?

Thanks in advance

[dlowwa]

Thanks for both Dana,

Yesterday I received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9986343. for underexposed.
If I see the histogram here , I don't really understand that, as to histogram is fully stretched here.
Also adding more exposure would blow out some parts of the aircraft imho.
Though I could inderstand contrast being an issue here, as it's also partially backlit on the tail.
How do I have to understand this one?

Thanks in advance

More to do with the angle of the aircraft than any technical underexposure as most of the aircraft is in shadow. I don't necessarily agree with that decision, but it was screened by two, and both voted too dark.

[wkd001]

More to do with the angle of the aircraft than any technical underexposure as most of the aircraft is in shadow. I don't necessarily agree with that decision, but it was screened by two, and both voted too dark.

Thanks for your explanation Dana.

I'll drop this one,

However, today I received a similar reject and again I do not totally accept this one https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10029479.
At least in my opinion this is definetely not underexposed. Top of the aircraft is already very close to blown out. The histogram is not showing underexposure and the contrast is as least debatable in my eyes.
So I'm curiious if this one stands a chance on appeal as the angle is at least better compared to the previous one and far more of the aircraft is better shown.
Also a would like a prescreen on some photos.


Potential issues for me here are glare, horizon and maybe contrast.

Potential issues for me here are glare ,exposure, contrast and the crop . (Original file had not much more of the aicraft included, at least not the entire aircraft at all)
Potential issues here hare contrast ,exposure and sharpness.

Thanks in advance and regards.
.

[dlowwa]

However, today I received a similar reject and again I do not totally accept this one https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10029479.
At least in my opinion this is definetely not underexposed. Top of the aircraft is already very close to blown out. The histogram is not showing underexposure and the contrast is as least debatable in my eyes.

Yeah that one was a bit ridiculous. Don't bother appealing, I already accepted it.

Potential issues for me here are glare, horizon and maybe contrast.

Potential issues for me here are glare ,exposure, contrast and the crop . (Original file had not much more of the aicraft included, at least not the entire aircraft at all)

Potential issues here hare contrast ,exposure and sharpness.

1. contrast a bit harsh, but other wise ok for me.
2. soft, borderline overexposure/contrast
3. soft, borderline contrast/backlit

[wkd001]

Yeah that one was a bit ridiculous. Don't bother appealing, I already accepted it.

Thank you so much for that Dana

1. contrast a bit harsh, but other wise ok for me.
2. soft, borderline overexposure/contrast
3. soft, borderline contrast/backlit

Thanks a lot for coming back for those also Dana.

I've lowered the contrast for the first a bit an queued it and will drop the third.

However, I ran again into some again, which I would like a prescreen on.

This is another snap of the Delta A350 from the previous post. Not sure on Vignetting, contrast , exposure, glare and crop at least.

Very unsure on this one on especially heathaze (apparently causing blurry or very soft) and maybe exposure/contrast

Biggest concerns here are contrast and sharpness. Maybe also horizon and glare (photo taken in my hometown btw)

Biggest concerns here are contrast/exposure and sharpness

Biggest potential issue for me here is heathaze (especially to the nose) causing blurry/softness

Thanks in advance and regards

[dlowwa]

Thanks a lot for coming back for those also Dana.

I've lowered the contrast for the first a bit an queued it and will drop the third.

However, I ran again into some again, which I would like a prescreen on.

1-2. borderline soft
3. ok for me
4-5. soft