Originally posted by 777MAN
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Contrast Rejections: Too much or too little?
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Too much or too little contrast is the most common rejection in Jetphotos, but from the perspective of photographer, I think this rejection should split to 3 rejections
1:High contrast
2:Low contrast
3:Light condition not good enough or Poor weather condition
Here are the following reasons that I think JP should add extra rejection of contrast.
1:Many photographer confuse about photo's contrast is too high or low, I think giving a high or low contrast will not give more pressure on photo screeners.
2:In JP, some photo with bad weather condition will be rejected by too much or too little contrast as well. But in some cases, the weather is not good, but it is also not very bad. If the photo got rejected for once by too much or too little contrast rejection. The photographer may increase or decrease the contrast of the photo then upload it again. But in fact the photo screener think the weather is bad then giving this photo a contrast rejection. So no matter how photographer change the contrast of this photo, the photo will be always rejected by contrast rejection.
Imagine, if the screener give a light condition not good enough at the first time that this photo being screened, the photographer will not re-edit this photo again for re-uploading. This will save photographers' time and slot, also will save screeners' time.
Jetphotos has a voting system on photo screening, but photographer are only available to see the final result of the screened photo.
If photographer can see the voting process like: (airliners.net provide a very good example of this)
1st screener: soft
2nd screener: ask for second option
3rd screener: Added to HQ (accept)
Let's say that an image is finally accepted in the second or third screen process, but the advice given by the first screener can still help the photographer to avoid this problem in the later shooting or photo editing.
I wish the staff member of Jetphotos could consider my suggestions.
Kind regards from Sydney
Charlie Chang
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View PostOr 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
Hope this situation will be change in the futureKind regards from Sydney
Charlie Chang
Comment
-
As an ex-banned photographer who doesn't want to be banned again, I might say that my intentions here are to respectfully point out my frustrations and try to explain why those contrast rejections are becoming so annoying, not only for me, but I'm pretty sure that many others will agree. Please, don't read it with an agressive bias, that's not the case 😉
Recently i'm getting a lot of rejections by contrast, my acceptance ratio once was 80,48%, now it dropped to 80,14%, even getting some accepted photos in the middle.
Something like 70% or 80% of my rejections are due to contrast, and absolutely ALL of my pictures are uploaded with the histogram correctly balanced, as shown here on the first post and on the upload guidelines. So, the contrast rejections aren't so simple like said on the first post here.
Seems like what is happening is a lack of guideline for those rejections. The screeners some times doesn't stick to the published guideline and we get those frustrating rejections that we simply cannot understand.
Originally posted by dlowwa View Postit is hoped that photographers can try to sort the issue out themselves, (...). A big part of this is being able to read the histogram correctly.
Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View PostWe need people to know what has a chance to be accepted and what not.
Some months ago I saw a thread here where a photographer questioned about an accepted photo in a bad weather situation, the photographer was also screener and this was the complaint reason. Some screeners said that there is no problem with cloudy weather since the photo is ok with contrast, but it is not what we see in reality, this reject reason is being used sometimes only due to clear-non-blue sky even in clear days with acceptable light on the plane, great colors and nice contrast.
Contrast rejection reason became also "bad weather" rejection reason, and this is not written anywhere. You can follow strictly what the upload guidelines says and still get rejections by contrast. The worst part is that other photos with the same weather conditions are still being accepted. So, what is the parameter for the photos being accepted or rejected?
Anyone available to help?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
This rejection reason is the most nitpicking one IMO. I see perfectly fine pictures being rejected for this reason.
By the way, some screeners should stop rejecting by just looking at histograms and start seeing the pic as a whole thing.
This picture of mine was once rejected due to Contrast aswell. There was too much "white" in the picture, causing a spike in the histogram.
[1450px] The number of MadDogs still carrying passengers is decreasing quickly, so it was really great to see this classic MD-82 operating in Miami every day! This one is taking off from Runway 27 in a hot afternoon, with a very busy Dolphin Expressway at the foreground. Too bad Red Air have lost their "silver bullet" MD-82 in an accident here in Miami.. HI1066. McDonnell Douglas MD-82. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
However, the light conditions and contrast are fine. The combination of white fuselage and the light grey/beige color of the terminal behind surely caused a white peak on the histogram, leading to a wrong rejection. Fortunately, it was accepted after appeal. IMO this was an interesting example of a pic screened just by checking an histogram instead of really taking a look at how the picture look.
Pictures taken in cloudy condition can be really bad indeed, with messed up contrast, dark shadows, etc. But that's not always the case.
And it's so frustrating when we do our best on photo editing after rejection, trying to correct it by increasing the contrast, adjusting the shadows... just to keep being rejected due to the very same reason: "Too much or too little contrast".
The AA 738, Atlas 747 and TUI 787 pics shown by llpilch, for example, are great pics, despite the not so good weather. IMO screeners should stop being too nitpicking about this.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe this reject reason is the most controversial one. I always see people complaining about the Contrast issue! Screeners should do something about it and hopefully improve our situations. Not all pictures should be easily rejected by this reason!My pictures: https://www.jetphotos.com/photographer/46959
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by llpilch View PostA few more examples
As we said many times, unless the bad weather/light conditions bring something more to your image, there's no reasons for us to accept dull or flat images, specially when we do have many other. images of the same reg taken in good light conditions.
Please read again the initial post by Dana, it sums perfectly the whole question.
Have a nice day
Alex
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
All taken in dull light conditions.
As we said many times, unless the bad weather/light conditions bring something more to your image, there's no reasons for us to accept dull or flat images, specially when we do have many other. images of the same reg taken in good light conditions.
These two pics have just been accepted. Take a look:
1) https://www.jetphotos.com/
2) https://www.jetphotos.com/
A320 pic looks ok to me, 737 pic looks dark in my opinion. But both got accepted, and both don't seem to fit in your statement.
You may say that "screeners make mistakes" but maybe this happens more than you think.
By the way, no offense meant to the authors of those pictures. I don't know them, I just had a random scroll at the front page and found these quite easily.
I've seen many other pictures like this aswell.
I just wish screeners could be more consistent regarding pictures taken in cloudy/overcast conditions. When uploading a pic like this, we can only trust our luck!Last edited by dlowwa; 2024-02-23, 17:22. Reason: Feel free to use your own photos as examples, but please refrain from using those of other photographersMy pictures: https://www.jetphotos.com/photographer/46959
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leo 747 View Post
Alex, this is not what happens in reality...
These two pics have just been accepted. Take a look:
1) https://www.jetphotos.com/
2) https://www.jetphotos.com/
A320 pic looks ok to me, 737 pic looks dark in my opinion. But both got accepted, and both don't seem to fit in your statement.
You may say that "screeners make mistakes" but maybe this happens more than you think.
By the way, no offense meant to the authors of those pictures. I don't know them, I just had a random scroll at the front page and found these quite easily.
I've seen many other pictures like this aswell.
I just wish screeners could be more consistent regarding pictures taken in cloudy/overcast conditions. When uploading a pic like this, we can only trust our luck!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Thank you for the answers!
Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View PostAll taken in dull light conditions.
Far from the light I wanted to shoot, I just would like to try speacially the Interjet and Vivaair since those are the only pictures I have of that airlines. And despite the dull sun light, the sky isn't clipped, the shadows aren't too dark, the grayish haze is not there.
Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View PostAs we said many times, unless the bad weather/light conditions bring something more to your image, there's no reasons for us to accept dull or flat images, specially when we do have many other. images of the same reg taken in good light conditions.
Please read again the initial post by Dana, it sums perfectly the whole question.
Have a nice day
Alex
Dana surely explained very well the issues with contrast, but what he said resumes only to contrast. I attached to my previous posts 9 photos rejected by contrast which no one fits to the contrast rejection explained on that post: no spikes and no gaps on histogram, and very clear atmosphere without haze like the Jal 777 photo. That's what the upload guidelines says also.
The whole thing here is: people doesn't know if a photo is rejected by too much, too little contrast, or even if the problem really is contrast. The question on first post is to learn how to identify it either by the hazy condition or looking the histogram, but not about pictures taken in overcast days that still fits into those contrast parameters but are rejected.
Looks like we are facing a rejection reason called "bad weather" which doesn't exist yet and there is no guideline for it, the contrast rejection is used instead, and this is the root of all those discussions: no guide to the weather, photos with bad weather accepeted but others sometimes in better condition rejected. Also this thread shows many people having difficulties with this rejection and asking it to be split in 2 or even 3 different rejection reasons, since the problem sometimes is with the light condition, not contrast.
Have a nice Sunday
Comment
Comment