Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ThatOneFish- Prescreening/Editing Advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    still too little contrast for that one?

    I tried re editing from the raw, is this any better/worth to continue editing:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	EY433.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	778.2 KB
ID:	1040951

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26472[/ATTACH]

    anywhere close to being borderline for too little contrast? Thanks.
    Definitely a contrast (and probably color) rejection.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	EY433.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	828.6 KB
ID:	1040950

    anywhere close to being borderline for too little contrast? Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    Hello, i believe I have 2 new registrations, would they be considered "hot?" Is the quality good enough to be accepted?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26459[/ATTACH]
    Worried about obstruction/contrast on this one

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26460[/ATTACH]
    same worries.
    No obstruction on the first, but indeed contrast is quite poor. That is the only one that might be worth working on. Second is indeed obstructed.

    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    May I also get a prescreen on these? Thanks

    Are any of them worth continuing to edit due to poor contrast
    Probably not.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    Hello, i believe I have 2 new registrations, would they be considered "hot?" Is the quality good enough to be accepted?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	EY433.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	766.1 KB
ID:	1040940
    Worried about obstruction/contrast on this one

    Click image for larger version

Name:	RP-C7936.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	689.3 KB
ID:	1040941
    same worries.

    May I also get a prescreen on these? Thanks

    Worried about contrast on all of them.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	RPC3227v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	764.3 KB
ID:	1040942

    Click image for larger version

Name:	rpc8765.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	649.8 KB
ID:	1040943

    Click image for larger version

Name:	rpc9928.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	628.6 KB
ID:	1040944

    Are any of them worth continuing to edit due to poor contrast

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    Does this mean ok for you?Thanks.
    Sorry, yeah, should have read '1-2 ok for me'

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    1-2
    Does this mean ok for you?Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    Thank you. Location isn’t the same so I will find some editable shots from that flight.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26361[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26362[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26363[/ATTACH]

    any better? thanks.

    also would these be acceptable?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26383[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26384[/ATTACH]
    1-2
    3. borderline overexposed
    4. borderline contrast
    5. contrast

    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    also dlowwa, if I have wing pictures from the same registration and almost the exact same crop (taken from the same seat on different days) but with different scenery, would one of them be rejected as similar?
    Possibly, much more likely if the location is the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    also dlowwa, if I have wing pictures from the same registration and almost the exact same crop (taken from the same seat on different days) but with different scenery, would one of them be rejected as similar?

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Qantas.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	593.2 KB
ID:	1040854

    Click image for larger version

Name:	hl8325.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	878.2 KB
ID:	1040855

    Click image for larger version

Name:	ja317j.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	835.9 KB
ID:	1040856

    any better? thanks.

    also would these be acceptable?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	rpc9916reg.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	909.9 KB
ID:	1040874

    Click image for larger version

Name:	rpc4107.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	831.8 KB
ID:	1040875

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    Thank you. Will try to fix as much as possible

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    Hello, may i get a prescreen? Thanks.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26320[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26321[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26322[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26323[/ATTACH]
    1. soft, borderline contrast
    2. overexposed
    3. soft
    4. overexposed, borderline soft

    Originally posted by ThatOneFish View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7412539

    also, this was rejected for underexposed, do you think it’s worth an appeal? Thanks.
    Borderline. As I said, I think the issue is more with the contrast than the exposure itself, though it doesn't help that most of the aircraft is relatively dark.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Rodeback
    replied
    There is a large section of the histogram very close to touching the left edge of the histogram, indicating that there are a lot of very dark shadows. Not quite solid blacks, but very dark. This might be the cause of the rejection, I'm not sure. But bringing the shadows up in Lightroom or another program should do the trick. Dlowwa did say that this same photo was acceptable for him, so it may be worth an appeal. I would make the small adjustment in post processing if you can.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThatOneFish
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7412539

    also, this was rejected for underexposed, do you think it’s worth an appeal? Thanks.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X