Contrast Rejections: Too much or too little?

[lgabardo]

So a new rejection motive may be created? "Overcast" "gray sky"? If the histogram is perfect...

[Alex - Spot-This !]

If you perfectly expose an image taken in dull light, the picture will still look dull, even if the histogram is perfect.
It’s all about being selective enough and not uploading those borderline images.

Alex

[llpilch]

Thank you for the answers!

All taken in dull light conditions.

Agree! But also all well post processed in terms of contrast!
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.

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

There is no picture of the Phenon PS-WGB on database and mine photo was rejected, and the photo looks pretty ok. Yes, the sun light is dull on my photo, but the photo is still looking good, not perfect, but also not one that deserve to be rejected. Better than not having a picture I think.

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

[dlowwa]

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!

The two examples I would qualify as borderline acceptable and not acceptable. The second one will be removed, but in the future if you have doubts about such acceptances, better to contact the crew privately to avoid embarrassing the photographer.

[Leo 747]

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.

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!

[Alex - Spot-This !]

A few more examples

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.

Please read again the initial post by Dana, it sums perfectly the whole question.

Have a nice day
Alex

[Leo 747]

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.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10775748

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!

[llpilch]

A few more examples

[llpilch]

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.

it 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.

In my case, a big part (if not all) of the histogram does not show any issue with contrast. Looking to the picture, the contrast is also fine, with visible details on the highlights and the shadows (not too much contrast), and without grayish haze in the air (not too little contrast).

We need people to know what has a chance to be accepted and what not.

As I said on my last post here, I see accepted photos with CLEAR issues with contrast, which are even visible on the histogram, and the photo was accepted, so I look at my photos and think it have a chance.

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?

[Charlie Chang]

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 agree with your opinion, but in most cases when the bad weather photo will be only rejected by contrast rejection. Not contrast + bad quality
Hope this situation will be change in the future

[Charlie Chang]

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.

[paulc]

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

You obviously do not get english humour. The too much or too little contrast rejection has been a problem for a long time for many people - even using the histogram in Lightroom i still get that rejection. One of several reasons i dont bother uploading here very often

[llpilch]

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 that!

I must say that the rejections by "too much or too little constrast" are the more frustrating, and the reason is: I received this rejection sometimes with shots that REALLY didn't have any issue with contrast, or are very borderline, while I see accepted pictures with very low contrast.

Lets not forget: contrast is the "difference" (not the proper word, but my English is very poor, sorry) between the whites and the blacks, with a reference on the midtones. If what is meant to be white is pure white and what is meant to be black is pure black, then you have the perfect contrast, if the white is a little gray, OR/AND the blacks are a little gray, then you have low contrast issue. But of course it has to be balanced, in the opposite hand, if the clear areas have TOO MUCH white and the dark areas have TOO MUCH black, the mid tones will be going to be white or black and then you'll have high contrast.

That's EXACTLY what is shown on the first post of this topic with that 747 example, which was PERFECTLY described using the histogram explaining what it says with that gaps and spikes.

So, if it is so easy to identify the constrast issues, why are so many good photos rejected and so many photos with low contrast being accepted?

I totally agree that there are some conditions when the picture will never be acceptable for JP or any other site that requests a higher quality standart. Specially when the problem is not only the overcast sky, but plus a umid or even dry haze in the air, like few fog or pollution. Or when the overcast is due to very heavy clouds that turns everything on ground too much dark, but I see rejected photos with very nice weather, just without the sun, but pictures with nice light, nice colors, nice exposure, nice contrast, nice dark areas, pure whites (not overexposed, not gray), etc... photos that the only difference to a nice sunny-blue_sky photo is the fact that there is no shadow on the ground and the sky is white not blue, but the lighting is fine.

I'm having rejections that the histogram is pretty fine, not possible to say if it was rejected by too much or too little, so I agree with all the people who claims to separate it into two different rejections: "too much contrast" and "too little contrast".

I have respect for the job that the screeners do voluntarily to make the site possible for us, but if the screener will reject the picture, then will have to search in the rejection reasons list and click on the one that aply, it doesn't add extra work for him/her!

please check my thoughts on the attached photos bellow.

Best regards

[LX-A343]

Can anyone explain to me how this photo was accepted: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10008540
but my photo was rejected for contrast reasons https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8791554

I personally fail to see any contrast in the accepted photo.

Both photos are borderline and can go either way. You just were less lucky.

[Boscgnspotter]

Can anyone explain to me how this photo was accepted: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10008540
but my photo was rejected for contrast reasons https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8791554

I personally fail to see any contrast in the accepted photo.