mplace - Screening and Editing Advice

[dlowwa]

Hi again! If I could get these four photos pre-screened, I would greatly appreciate it!

1, 3, 4 - borderline contrast. low/diffuse light, may or may not be acceptable.
2. ok for me.

I am also wanting to know more on how contrast and exposure is assessed when screening photos. This was my second attempt at submitting this photo. The first time, I was rejected for "over processed, underexposed, and contrast. When I appealed, my request was denied because the contrast was too harsh. I was told to "ignore the overexposed/dark rejection, [because] it was from a screener in training." I went back to reduce the contrast and took the screener's word to ignore the exposure. As you can see on my second attempt, I was rejected for the same reasons.

It was not rejected for the same reasons, the earlier 'dark' rejection was not included. There are sections of the aircraft that are blown out (clipped highlights), while the shadows are quite strong. The low angle of the light and the livery are the main culprits here. If you can come up with an edit that brings down the highlights from being clipped and at the same time boosts the shadows, you might be able to come up with an acceptable edit.

[mplace]

Hi,

I would like this photo pre-screened if possible. There were lens flares that hit covered a few small portions of the aircraft. I did some cloning in some of the image to get rid of these flares, but I am concerned whether after my edits, the edits would be considered grounds for expulsion from JP for digital manipulation. I do not want to sacrifice my account trying to submit this image. I appreciate your help!

[dlowwa]

Hi,

I would like this photo pre-screened if possible. There were lens flares that hit covered a few small portions of the aircraft. I did some cloning in some of the image to get rid of these flares, but I am concerned whether after my edits, the edits would be considered grounds for expulsion from JP for digital manipulation. I do not want to sacrifice my account trying to submit this image. I appreciate your help!

Cloning to remove lens flare is considered manipulation, yes. Good idea to check here first

[mplace]

Hi, I am hitting the forums again just to get clarification before I make another appeal. Recently I had this photo: (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11290105) rejected due to "Dark / Underexposed" & "Too much or too little contrast;" however, this photo (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11065763) was accepted under the same time/conditions with very similar angle. Both histograms of each photo are very similar too.

I would love some more clarification on what resulted in the rejection of this photo compared to the one that is accepted when the characteristics and data for each photo are almost identical. I appreciate your help and guidance.

[dlowwa]

Hi, I am hitting the forums again just to get clarification before I make another appeal. Recently I had this photo: (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11290105) rejected due to "Dark / Underexposed" & "Too much or too little contrast;" however, this photo (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11065763) was accepted under the same time/conditions with very similar angle. Both histograms of each photo are very similar too.

I would love some more clarification on what resulted in the rejection of this photo compared to the one that is accepted when the characteristics and data for each photo are almost identical. I appreciate your help and guidance.

Honestly (unfortunately), that one just comes down to different screeners seeing things differently. I think you got lucky on the accepted one, it would have been a dark/contrast rejection for me as well.

[mplace]

Thank you for the feedback Dana. I know this would be a rejection by your standards, but to others on the screening personnel, would still be worth while to appeal this and debated between the rest of the screening staff?

For more clarification, what do you and the screeners look at when evaluating darkness and contrast. I have noticed over the years uploading that majority of the contrast rejections are due to not having "direct sun" on the aircraft and having overcast lighting. This makes sense and I see the consistency across the website which I applaud you and your staff for setting a precedent on; however, I am not sure what would constitute this photo to be rejected when the "check for dust" tool can show some sunlight on the side of the Osprey. What really confuses me is the "Dark / Underexposed" rejections. My understanding is that a histogram is a great resource to determine whether or not a photo is dark, properly exposed, or blown out based on where the "hump" is skewed on the graph (the more left skewed, the more dark it is. The more right skewed, the more overexposed and blown out the photo is. The more centered, the more properly exposed the photo is).

Below are the histograms of the last two photos I referenced in post 49. To my interpretations, the 'humps" are skewed more towards the right. These shots were taken right before sunset and the exposure was raised to combat the low-light conditions. It may be argued that it could be "over-exposed," but this was in attempt to edit for the low-lighting conditions with diffused sunlight on the aircraft.



Although I am an avgeek and do aviation photography, my experience with photo journalism and various photo contests have taught me that a photo will not appeal to every single eye it comes across, and I respect that. I just hope that this clarification can not only help me improve my photos for uploading in the future, but also may serve as reference to others who would like learn and enhance their skills at this hobby.

[dlowwa]

Thank you for the feedback Dana. I know this would be a rejection by your standards, but to others on the screening personnel, would still be worth while to appeal this and debated between the rest of the screening staff?

For more clarification, what do you and the screeners look at when evaluating darkness and contrast. I have noticed over the years uploading that majority of the contrast rejections are due to not having "direct sun" on the aircraft and having overcast lighting. This makes sense and I see the consistency across the website which I applaud you and your staff for setting a precedent on; however, I am not sure what would constitute this photo to be rejected when the "check for dust" tool can show some sunlight on the side of the Osprey. What really confuses me is the "Dark / Underexposed" rejections. My understanding is that a histogram is a great resource to determine whether or not a photo is dark, properly exposed, or blown out based on where the "hump" is skewed on the graph (the more left skewed, the more dark it is. The more right skewed, the more overexposed and blown out the photo is. The more centered, the more properly exposed the photo is).

Although I am an avgeek and do aviation photography, my experience with photo journalism and various photo contests have taught me that a photo will not appeal to every single eye it comes across, and I respect that. I just hope that this clarification can not only help me improve my photos for uploading in the future, but also may serve as reference to others who would like learn and enhance their skills at this hobby.

The thing with the histogram is that it shows exposure for the whole frame whereas we're most concerned with just the subject (aircraft). As a result, you could have an image that the histogram shows is properly exposed, but if the aircraft is mostly dark, it would be a rejection. In my experience, the histogram for screening is only really useful from a technical standpoint to show if something is overexposed. The rest (unfortunately) comes down to aesthetics.

As for appealing, it's your call, but I'm one of ~6-7 people who actually handle appeals regularly, and I see eye-to-eye with the others 90-95% of the time.