nik-pilgrim - rejection help/editing advice

[nik-pilgrim]

I always shoot in raw and if I do post-processing, then to a minimum. And dark areoles - will appear in any picture, just unscrew the settings. Therefore, I am talking about the incompetence of those who take pictures. I have already given an example in the previous message.

[JuklicekCZ]

reworked? Not processed at all. This is how the light falls
Here's an example of the bias of selectors. The picture is not in focus, but it is accepted... And this is not only my opinion, but also other participants
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10792151#

You can see, that there are dark halos below the tail and around the skids.
That is what is called being overprocessed.
In case it is shot into JPG it may be overprocessed regardless of whether you add any additional editing as the camera does apply plenty of after effects on its own.

[nik-pilgrim]

The photo really is overprocessed, nobody is trolling you.

reworked? Not processed at all. This is how the light falls
Here's an example of the bias of selectors. The picture is not in focus, but it is accepted... And this is not only my opinion, but also other participants
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10792151#

[JuklicekCZ]

The photo really is overprocessed, nobody is trolling you.

[nik-pilgrim]

I honestly do not understand the people who make decisions on the approval of the publication.
here is my picture - I sent it and received a response that the information is incorrect. After I checked the data again and sent the picture again. Got this response: Over Processed / Bad postprocessing Dark/Underexposed Bad Color (Over/Under Saturation, Hue).
Are they trolling this way? How to understand that the picture is "Dark"?

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks for the tip. Tell me, how do you look at the data for dust - with what program (Photoshop) and what keyboard shortcut?

I used Photoshop - Image/Adjustments/Equalize.

[dlowwa]

Now I tried to upload another picture - but it was also not accepted. With the same wording - although I looked at the dust very carefully ...
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10634484

I see some halos there, but no dust.

[nik-pilgrim]

Thanks for the tip. Tell me, how do you look at the data for dust - with what program (Photoshop) and what keyboard shortcut?

Now I tried to upload another picture - but it was also not accepted. With the same wording - although I looked at the dust very carefully ...
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10634484

[MarkLawrence]

From what I can tell here ...

[nik-pilgrim]

Where exactly is the dust and dirt in the photo? I'm trying to upload a photo but getting rejected...

[nik-pilgrim]

I'll try to change the shooting angle... Thank you all for the explanations and answers

[RobertMahar15]

light falls right along the landing course, shines directly into the crew's face, in the picture this is the left side. For example, in this picture https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10389605 the light falls almost identical, but the work is accepted, or in this picture https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10389551 here the light actually actually divides the fuselage into two parts (bright stern and dark bow). You can continue for a long time, there is a lot of such work. Therefore, there is a misunderstanding of the mistake that would prevent such a thing in the future.

Found this within another discussion of the DPP forum.

“For reference, JP screeners look at the tail, if it's in its own shadow, then we consider it as backlit”

as you can see, this applies to your photo.

[nik-pilgrim]

light falls right along the landing course, shines directly into the crew's face, in the picture this is the left side. For example, in this picture https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10389605 the light falls almost identical, but the work is accepted, or in this picture https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10389551 here the light actually actually divides the fuselage into two parts (bright stern and dark bow). You can continue for a long time, there is a lot of such work. Therefore, there is a misunderstanding of the mistake that would prevent such a thing in the future.

[Calvin L]

I do not understand the wording from the administration. He filed a job https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=9701439
I was refused with the wording - Backlit. The administrator was so kind that he gave an explanation - Clear backlit, entire fuselage and tail is dark due the position of the sun.
But on the site I saw enough work in which part of the fuselage was not just dark, but black because of the shadow and lighting, but these work was accepted...

I'm not a crew.
This are backlit, the light are at the other side. And unfixable.

[nik-pilgrim]

I do not understand the wording from the administration. He filed a job https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=9701439
I was refused with the wording - Backlit. The administrator was so kind that he gave an explanation - Clear backlit, entire fuselage and tail is dark due the position of the sun.
But on the site I saw enough work in which part of the fuselage was not just dark, but black because of the shadow and lighting, but these work was accepted...