Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Len90: Editing Advice

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

  • Len90: Editing Advice

    Hello,

    I have this image of the FIFA world cup tour that I am trying to get accepted. The image was initially rejected for contrast, I figured it was needing more contrast so I boosted it. The image has been looked at by numerous other aviation photographers, some who screen for other databases. When that was rejected for contrast too much or too little, I appealed. I gave a lengthy appeal stating why I felt the contrast was proper and if they disagree to tell me if they want more or less contrast. HS response" "Sorry, contrast too poor. Use forum for more assistance". Basically a kind way of saying I don't care to help you or I don't want to help you.

    With that said; here is the image. As you can see weather was less than ideal, but when you have a one time visitor, you work with what you are given.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/930822...535467/sizes/l


    Lastly, how hard would it be for the site to screen with separate reasons of too much contrast and too little contrast. Or if you reject for that at least add a personal note and say boost the contrast or reduce the contrast.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Len90 View Post
    I gave a lengthy appeal stating why I felt the contrast was proper and if they disagree to tell me if they want more or less contrast. HS response" "Sorry, contrast too poor. Use forum for more assistance". Basically a kind way of saying I don't care to help you or I don't want to help you.
    Actually, that message was left as a polite way of reminding you that the appeal function is meant to be used when you disagree with a rejection, not to seek advice, and we often leave such messages when someone asks for advice in an appeal. When screening (appeals of otherwise), we unfortunately don't have time to write lengthy replies a) because the image in question will time out if we take too long b) many other people with images waiting who deserve our time just as much as you. Those of us who make the effort to come to the forum and offer advice usually have a little more time to commit to such things.

    Originally posted by Len90 View Post
    With that said; here is the image. As you can see weather was less than ideal, but when you have a one time visitor, you work with what you are given.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/930822...535467/sizes/l
    Indeed, but unfortunately we don't make exceptions for what may be a rare visitor for you. It's great that you got a shot of an unusual aircraft, but there is actually nothing to make this photo unique (bland grey sky), and even if there were, like I said, we generally don't make exceptions to quality for "rare for my airport!" type shots. Given the poor light, I don't think there is much you can do to make this image acceptable for here, sorry.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
      Actually, that message was left as a polite way of reminding you that the appeal function is meant to be used when you disagree with a rejection, not to seek advice, and we often leave such messages when someone asks for advice in an appeal. When screening (appeals of otherwise), we unfortunately don't have time to write lengthy replies a) because the image in question will time out if we take too long b) many other people with images waiting who deserve our time just as much as you. Those of us who make the effort to come to the forum and offer advice usually have a little more time to commit to such things.
      Which is why a change in your rejection reasons is due. Split the contrast rejections into two: One for too much contrast and the other for too little. In addition my appeal message stated that I utilized the appeal after having the picture looked at by other aviation photographers, some of whom are screeners for databases who saw no issue with the contrast. That right there is not an advice seeking message, rather an explanation for an appeal. I then further stated if the site disagrees to just say too much or too little on the contrast. How long does that take? It is less time to type three words than the five words "use forum for more assistance". Giving that much in the rejection is not time consuming and will not time out the image either as three words type is less than five words type... unless the screener is randomly clicking "contrast" as a rejection reason because they don't see a blue sky?

      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
      Indeed, but unfortunately we don't make exceptions for what may be a rare visitor for you. It's great that you got a shot of an unusual aircraft, but there is actually nothing to make this photo unique (bland grey sky), and even if there were, like I said, we generally don't make exceptions to quality for "rare for my airport!" type shots. Given the poor light, I don't think there is much you can do to make this image acceptable for here, sorry.
      That's really a shame that the site only wants photographs from sunny days with a blue sky which involves way less skill than pulling off a shot in the conditions that this photo were taken in. In reality you don't always have that blue sky. As for nothing unique, we can say that about a majority of the pictures on the database. I get it you have like 15 pictures of the plane from its stop in San Juan. This is a unique plane and the quality was not an issue either time it was screened and when the appeal was processed.

      I came to the forum with a single question about the contrast and have failed to receive that answer. In the site's opinion is the contrast too harsh or is the contrast too low?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Len90 View Post
        I came to the forum with a single question about the contrast and have failed to receive that answer. In the site's opinion is the contrast too harsh or is the contrast too low?
        Overall light is too poor. Adding or subtracting contrast would be unlikely to improve it enough to make it acceptable for here. Sorry there is no rejection reason for that

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
          Overall light is too poor. Adding or subtracting contrast would be unlikely to improve it enough to make it acceptable for here. Sorry there is no rejection reason for that
          You actually have a rejection reason for images the site just doesn't want: it's called the quality. I assume you weren't the one who initially screened it or processed the appeal. If so then it wouldn't just have a contrast rejection.

          Sad to see the site's preference for washed out colors due to backlit shots over overcast.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Len90 View Post
            You actually have a rejection reason for images the site just doesn't want: it's called the quality. I assume you weren't the one who initially screened it or processed the appeal. If so then it wouldn't just have a contrast rejection.
            I appreciate that your lack of familiarity with the screening system is causing some consternation. In fact, the 'Quality' rejection is only used for the most dire of images. The contrast on yours is poor, but there aren't really any other major issues. You would be shocked if you saw the submitted images that ended up with a 'Quality' rejection. Imagine cellphone images taken from 2km away against the sun, and you start to get the idea.

            Originally posted by Len90 View Post
            Sad to see the site's preference for washed out colors due to backlit shots over overcast.
            We have no preference for either, but it's not uncommon for people to feel like their shots are being singled out upon receiving rejections - "what do they have against overcast/backlit/low-light/night/cellphone/film/long-range/close-up/military/civilian/boring/action shots??"

            Comment


            • #7
              Let’s try this again...

              Hello,

              I recently caught this aircraft at EWR that is now in SkyWest colors (first shot of the frame in such scheme). Uploaded and rejected for a contrast rejection. The image was shot on a day when there was some overcast causing a filtered sun with a snow pack providing some reflective lighting. I appealed explaining that the true black of the gear is black and the true white of the fuselage is white. Appeal denied with “background too bright and no way to fix the contrast, better keep it for your personal collection.” Now I understand we can’t always have that perfect sunshine and there are plenty of shots accepted that show we don’t have that lighting (I have a fair amount myself). Did the site have a change in acceptable criteria? The sky is darker than the white of the fuselage and there is a definitive shadow from the engine showing this is a filtered sun shot.

              The image: https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/46233_1551757280.jpg

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Len90 View Post
                Let’s try this again...

                Hello,

                I recently caught this aircraft at EWR that is now in SkyWest colors (first shot of the frame in such scheme). Uploaded and rejected for a contrast rejection. The image was shot on a day when there was some overcast causing a filtered sun with a snow pack providing some reflective lighting. I appealed explaining that the true black of the gear is black and the true white of the fuselage is white. Appeal denied with “background too bright and no way to fix the contrast, better keep it for your personal collection.” Now I understand we can’t always have that perfect sunshine and there are plenty of shots accepted that show we don’t have that lighting (I have a fair amount myself). Did the site have a change in acceptable criteria? The sky is darker than the white of the fuselage and there is a definitive shadow from the engine showing this is a filtered sun shot.

                The image: https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/46233_1551757280.jpg
                There has been no change in acceptance criteria regarding contrast. If it matters, this would have been a contrast rejection for me as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So fine a contrast rejection and you offer if it is too much vs too little. The sky too bright comment from the screener is where I find a fault. You can’t reject a photo simply because the sky isn’t blue.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I’m going to jump in here and say my take. The conditions you were shooting in make it near impossible to get the contrast right - the sky brightness is a byproduct of that. In essence, you can reject a photo because they sky wasn’t blue. It’s not the sky itself, but the effect it has on the rest of the photo. There are plenty of overcast photos that are acceptable because the conditions were different. This just isn’t one of them, and arguing doesn’t change that fact.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X