Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contrast Rejections: Too much or too little?

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Since there have been more than a few requests to have the contrast rejection split into two separate reasons (Too Much or Too Little), it might be a good idea to clarify why this is not a change the crew intends to proceed with any time soon.

    First, by making this change it would imply that to fix a rejection, one would simply need to add (or subtract) contrast, and the image be should then be acceptable. This is simply not the case in the majority of contrast rejections. A majority of contrast rejections are due to poor overall lighting (resulting from overcast or hazy weather conditions) which no amount of editing would make suitable for JP. Someone receiving a Contrast Too Low rejection for such an image would logically conclude that by simply adding contrast, the image would then be suitable, something that is quite unlikely. This is an example of weather conditions that pretty much preclude the chance an image would be acceptable for JP:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20142[/ATTACH]
    - if you're faced with conditions like this -or worse-, take photos as you please, but do realize that there is unfortunately little to no chance your image will be suitable for JP


    Second, without relying on being told what the exact issue is, it is hoped that photographers can try to sort the issue out themselves, both saving the crew time, and hopefully improving the eye and technique of the photographers. A big part of this is being able to read the histogram correctly. While the histogram can't always predict whether an image deserves a contrast rejection, it usually does give a good general indication of whether contrast might be an issue. This is not to say you can rely completely on the histogram to judge contrast (an aircraft in the shadow in the foreground with a bright background would look fine on the histogram, but would almost certainly be rejected), but it is definitely a tool worth learning how to use. You can see from these examples that the histogram can often be a good guide as to whether the contrast may be acceptable or not:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20143[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]20144[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]20145[/ATTACH]
    - Notice the large gaps on the edges of the first histogram indicating weak shadows and dull highlights. The second (middle) while still a bit flat, shows improved contrast, as the edges are closer to the middle. The final histogram has large spikes on the edges indicating both very strong shadows and clipped highlights, a good indication that the contrast is too strong in this case.


    Finally, the vast majority of rejections are for a lack of contrast, so one can assume that is likely what the issue is. The next step after a contrast rejection would be to assess whether the conditions were good enough (as hinted at in the first point above, this should also be the first step before submitting. Recognizing unworkable conditions will help avoid many a contrast rejections in the first place). If this is the case, one can check the histogram to consider whether simply adding contrast will suffice, or even appeal if one feels certain the contrast is acceptable. If this is not the case, then consider that the image may not be fixable (or suitable in the first place) for uploading. If one is unsure at any of these points, it's strongly encouraged to use the Processing and Feedback forum to seek advice.
    Thanks for explaining.

    Many times I didn't understand well what was the rejection by contrast but with this explanation it's clear to me. Now apply this with the photos and in the editions.

    They could, if they want and can, make a YouTube channel with details and things to comment / clarify.

    Finally, I would like to thank you for your advice ... I started in auto and adobe RGB and thanks to the forums I was changing ... although much still remains.

    Regards!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
      Or we could just add "quality" to any image which has no chance of being accepted ? I would like that solution better than adding an extra rejection reason

      - Contrast alone - Room to improvement
      - Contrast + quality - No Chance, one for the personal collection
      I am relatively new around here and I like reading these constructive and useful threads. As a forum moderator elsewhere I am sympathetic to the role the screeners have. I am also painfully aware of the difficulties us novices have. For the more experienced ones here, a lot of the info and arguments posted are painfully obvious but for the novices they are not. For this reason, Alex’s suggestion, applicable to all photos, would greatly help as would including its definition in the upload guide.

      I for one, I am here to develop and have fun whilst I learn how to be a better photographer and meet new friends. I value detailed constructive feedback greatly and the difficulty for screeners is that the volume of pics they deal with means they cannot give detailed feedback -I wish I could sit with screeners and members and do a download of their expertise. As novices, we have to join the dots, figure out the bits in the middle and get better -that much is obvious and part of your own self learning. Fundamentally, knowing early on that a particular pic is not of the desired quality I consider extremely useful so I do not go wasting anyone’s time. Many of us will quickly learn, our skills will improve and we will hopefully avoid clogging up the system.

      With the pre-screening process now in place I wondered if there is an opportunity to limit the number of times a pic is re uploaded for screening. It could help reduce the size of the queue and perhaps encourage us all to be more selective about what we re upload.

      Best wishes to all.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
        Or we could just add "quality" to any image which has no chance of being accepted ? I would like that solution better than adding an extra rejection reason

        - Contrast alone - Room to improvement
        - Contrast + quality - No Chance, one for the personal collection
        Great idea.

        Comment


        • #19
          I agree that there needs to be some guidance from the screeners on contrast as it is majority of rejections. I have not changed my processing ways however I appear to be getting more contrast rejections as time goes on.

          Comment


          • #20
            Simply... when clouds are out stay at home or do not upload photos to JP. Personally i don't agree, but this is only my opinion.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Diego727 View Post
              I saw a lot of rejections due to contrast on cloudy days, is impossible to have blue skies always and overcast sky is part of the aviation too, I think that is a good idea be a little flexible on that cases.

              I agree with the idea to find another rejection reason, because, when I see the contrast rejection the first thing that comes to my mind is Ok, I can fix it, but if the rejection is beyond of the contrast should be good idea add another rejection category, to avoid double upload.
              Hi Diego. I can say my thoughts on this.
              I believe that anyone is free to photograph an airplane in all weather conditions, but if you decide to upload them to share them here, I think it is right to stick to the community guidelines. I think this makes work more tidy and leaves no room for discussions on the quality of the shots.
              Excuse my bad English.

              Comment


              • #22
                If you get a too much or too little contrast rejection just re-upload 2 images one with more contrast and one with less contrast to give yourself a fighting chance

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by paulc View Post
                  If you get a too much or too little contrast rejection just re-upload 2 images one with more contrast and one with less contrast to give yourself a fighting chance
                  Ok I will respond ( against my better judgement). Read this - https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...milar-in-Queue

                  You do yourself no favours postings such remarks. The Crew give up personal time to screen images. So everyone who genuinely uploads their images within the guidelines have to contend with waiting whilst we reject your “ double” uploads. Quite ridiculous!
                  T

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi all,

                    Most of my previous 15 images were rejected due to 'Too Much or Too Little Contrast' as a reason.

                    One of the recent upload that was rejected for the very same reason is the shown below.
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	G-VWOO.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	125.0 KB
ID:	1074715


                    Now, I'm sharing the non-edited version of the same image below.
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	49070213741_d018bf4e7e_b.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	82.0 KB
ID:	1074716



                    I would like to ask the expert screeners in this forum few queries related to both these images.

                    1.) Does the edited image requires more or less contrast?

                    2.) Is the un-edited version image not editable at all because of the poor light?

                    Request you all to kindly help on this so that it will help me improve my editing.

                    Awaiting a positive response.

                    Thanks and Best Regards,
                    Sreenivas Subramaniam

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sreenivas123 View Post

                      I would like to ask the expert screeners in this forum few queries related to both these images.

                      2.) Is the un-edited version image not editable at all because of the poor light?
                      That is correct.

                      Also, in the future, please start your own thread for any editing advice questions.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X