ThatOneFish- Prescreening/Editing Advice

[ThatOneFish]

Was I able to fix the light problem?

[dlowwa]

Was I able to fix the light problem?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26065[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26064[/ATTACH]

1. exposure better, but looking again, might need a touch of CCW rotation.
2. still likely a dark/contrast rejection.

[ThatOneFish]

would i use one of the poles in the back to check for 1? or should i use one of the buildings next to the american?

[dlowwa]

would i use one of the poles in the back to check for 1? or should i use one of the buildings next to the american?

The buildings and poles are both leaning, though usually buildings are a bit more reliable than light poles.

[ThatOneFish]

I had to re edit china airlines because i forgot to save the psd. Did I correctly fix the horizons?


I tried to fix the darkness/contrast issue on the wing view, do you think its not worth trying to continue to fix?

[dlowwa]

I had to re edit china airlines because i forgot to save the psd. Did I correctly fix the horizons?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26067[/ATTACH]

I tried to fix the darkness/contrast issue on the wing view, do you think its not worth trying to continue to fix?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26068[/ATTACH]

1. ok for me
2. very borderline contrast

[ThatOneFish]

Hello, may i get a prescreen? Thanks.

[ThatOneFish]

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

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

[Michael Rodeback]

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.

[dlowwa]

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

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.

[ThatOneFish]

Thank you. Will try to fix as much as possible

[ThatOneFish]

any better? thanks.

also would these be acceptable?

[ThatOneFish]

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?

[dlowwa]

[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

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.

[ThatOneFish]

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