Help with rejection

[grx44]

I got this picture rejected for Overexposition:
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7135023

I really do not underestand , even if the histogram has a peak on the right, it is not cut , there are no burnt zones and obviouslly the image really do not look overexposed!!

If I reduce exposition, then the picture get dramatically under-exposed!!?!

[brianw999]

The whites are overexposed and lacking detail as evidenced by the clipped histogram on the right side. Try some curves adjustment and maybe add a touch of contrast.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Tail is overexposed with a visible lack of details. As Brian said, histogram confirms the overexposure.

[grx44]

Sorry, but... do we really see the same picture?

here is a screen capture of the photo under Capture One, with overexposure warning activated:


I do not understand when you're talking about lack df detail du to overexposure, when there is no overexposure...

even better (or worse) what is the différence with these ones :
same airplane, same kind of light, same very slight clipping on the right of the histogram, but got accepted:

[dlowwa]

Sorry, but... do we really see the same picture?

here is a screen capture of the photo under Capture One, with overexposure warning activated:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]22159[/ATTACH]

I do not understand when you're talking about lack df detail du to overexposure, when there is no overexposure...

Please keep the topic to your own image. Your screen shot shows blown out areas in red, no?

[grx44]

I keep the topic on MY image, I just want to understand rejection compared to very similar pictures accepted with same histograms.

My screen shot shows overexposed areas in red, but the livery itself IS red.

[dlowwa]

I keep the topic on MY image, I just want to understand rejection compared to very similar pictures accepted with same histograms.

My screen shot shows overexposed areas in red, but the livery itself IS red.

So you are admitting then that there are overexposed areas in your image?

[grx44]

If you think the few red dots on the tail make a totally overexposed picture, then yes :-\ Anyway, I had to dramatically underexposed it to get it accepted, which is a total non-sense for the ambiance of the picture.

[grx44]

I need help with some photos which have been rejected:
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7296029
rejected for too much/too little contrast.
The airplane is on the shadow of a kind of open hangar, with heavy sun outside. What can I do to improve?


https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7316177
rejected for heat distortion: I can't see some distortion anywhere??!?
again too much or too little contrast, which I do not understand here. What is the point making you say that? so I could understand what is wrong.

[dlowwa]

If you think the few red dots on the tail make a totally overexposed picture, then yes :-\ Anyway, I had to dramatically underexposed it to get it accepted, which is a total non-sense for the ambiance of the picture.

Not sure that's the attitude you want to take when asking for people to volunteer advice, but I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I need help with some photos which have been rejected:
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7296029
rejected for too much/too little contrast.
The airplane is on the shadow of a kind of open hangar, with heavy sun outside. What can I do to improve?

Due to the very harsh difference in light, don't think this one can be improved. Also a bit blurry it seems, so maybe better to move on from this one.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7316177
rejected for heat distortion: I can't see some distortion anywhere??!?
again too much or too little contrast, which I do not understand here. What is the point making you say that? so I could understand what is wrong.

Look at the three lines along the fuselage. They should be relatively straight with sharp borders, but here they are wavy, with soft ill-defined edges. This is a result of heat distortion. Contrast is due to the lack of direct light.

[grx44]

Ok. Thank you for the advices.

[grx44]

Once again, I really need help for a rejection:
here is the picture

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7324182

I really do not understand the two Reason:

Bad framing ???
Here is the grid provided on the photo page


If this is bad framing, then where should the aircraft be?????

Over-exposed: I even less understand that.
Do you really want me to submit the photo as this???


because, THAT is what seems to give a correct histogram listening to you.

Picture as a merely dark background of trees, with white plane in the sun in front of it, so obviously, you'll have a peak on the right of the histogram.
But when you adjust the histogram to bring the right end to the feet of the peak, you can't say that the picture is overexposed. if you look at it by your eyes, you can see it is merely well-balanced.

Another way is to "pull the histogram" to the left, and the picture here above is the result you get. Ok, there is no peak on the right, and it will fit the JP histogram, but your photo is totally underexposed, and really not showing what is a white plane on the sun late in the Morning.

I already had this kind of problem with this photo:
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9258498

To be accepted, I had to dramatically underexposed it, so the photo looks like it has been taken at dusk in September or October, although it has been taken at 10h41on february, with a nice winter morning light.

[flying Doc]

Dear Gael,

as you can see from the grid, the plane is quite low in the frame. The centerline should be somewhere on the insignia. As per the overexposure, not only there is a big spike to the right of the histogram but all the details are blown out. On the second pic (the "under-"/ "correct-" exposed) you can clarly distinguish the dorsal fin from the tail, which is not the case in the rejected one.
Even though I haven't screened your pic, I agree with the rejection.

Sotiris