Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: pkautzsch - Editing Advice

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Question pkautzsch - Editing Advice

    Dear screener community,

    since signing on JP, getting 100% rejects in the beginning, I'm trying to learn how to get my photos right the first time. Obviously some of it is monitor related, some is experience related, some is probably just not quite knowing what a rejection reason actually means. For example I keep getting "dark/underexposed" rejects even when the histogram shows content from the very left to the very right.

    Now I found there is this editing advice forum, so let's jump to the chance to improve and to save all you screeners a bit of time.

    The first candidate is this one: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6185924, rejected for "dark".
    The histogram to me looks correct, I did a bit of Gamma correction. Would this new version be accepted?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7998_D-AIHZ.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	240.6 KB 
ID:	11273


    Also,pictures like this one https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6185889 keep getting rejected for "dark" and "contrast". I do see the noise issue with the sky here now.
    Again, the histogram has no gaps on either side though I see that most of the content is on the darker side. Well, the sky *was* dark in reality, that's what - to me - makes the interesting atmosphere, together with the sun glares in the windows. Would this slight brightening the midtones and shadows be sufficient:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7806_HB-JOW.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	347.8 KB 
ID:	11274

    or rather like this https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6185893 (rejected) with just the sky brightened (did more sharpening too):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7842_9H-AEI_2.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	315.6 KB 
ID:	11275

    Thanks in advance

  2. #2
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    Dear screener community,

    since signing on JP, getting 100% rejects in the beginning, I'm trying to learn how to get my photos right the first time. Obviously some of it is monitor related, some is experience related, some is probably just not quite knowing what a rejection reason actually means. For example I keep getting "dark/underexposed" rejects even when the histogram shows content from the very left to the very right.

    Now I found there is this editing advice forum, so let's jump to the chance to improve and to save all you screeners a bit of time.

    The first candidate is this one: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6185924, rejected for "dark".
    The histogram to me looks correct, I did a bit of Gamma correction. Would this new version be accepted?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7998_D-AIHZ.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	240.6 KB 
ID:	11273


    Also,pictures like this one https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6185889 keep getting rejected for "dark" and "contrast". I do see the noise issue with the sky here now.
    Again, the histogram has no gaps on either side though I see that most of the content is on the darker side. Well, the sky *was* dark in reality, that's what - to me - makes the interesting atmosphere, together with the sun glares in the windows. Would this slight brightening the midtones and shadows be sufficient:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7806_HB-JOW.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	347.8 KB 
ID:	11274

    or rather like this https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6185893 (rejected) with just the sky brightened (did more sharpening too):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7842_9H-AEI_2.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	315.6 KB 
ID:	11275

    Thanks in advance
    1. both slightly dark, though the second is a bit better
    2. still too dark, and also would be rejected for noise. also the background/foreground is much more blurry than one would expect for f/13 150mm, even on a full frame
    3. exposure looks better, but the contrast still a bit harsh

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Thank you!
    The 346 is in the queue after more brightening.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Would these have a chance to pass?
    All would be Night Shot for the low sun, I guess? The 25 Years sticker on the Antonov: Special Scheme?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9199_ra-820476zz6w.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	672.0 KB 
ID:	11599

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9268_yr-bmfcwscv.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	605.5 KB 
ID:	11600

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9218_lx-diow8s82.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	675.0 KB 
ID:	11598


    Thank you for the pre-screening time you take!
    Last edited by pkautzsch; 11-27-2017 at 03:18 PM. Reason: image tag confusion

  5. #5
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,455

    Default

    an124 : a bit too soft - special scheme yes
    Blue Air : ok
    BBJ : probably too much heat haze

    Regards
    Alex

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Thank you Alex

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    "Bad Color" rejects

    Hi, I got a few "bad color" rejects all from the same batch, apparently some general error. Could someone please tell me if that's a color tint or under saturation issue - not quite sure. For example:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6255939
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6256093

    From another batch with obviously not the same kind of bad color:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6260887 - is this over saturated or too much of reddish evening glow?

    Thanks in advance

  8. #8
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    "Bad Color" rejects

    Hi, I got a few "bad color" rejects all from the same batch, apparently some general error. Could someone please tell me if that's a color tint or under saturation issue - not quite sure. For example:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6255939
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6256093

    From another batch with obviously not the same kind of bad color:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6260887 - is this over saturated or too much of reddish evening glow?

    Thanks in advance
    There's definitely a greeny/yellow tint going on.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Tweaked a bit. Would this (http://abload.de/image.php?img=9484_hb-izb_nbfouy.jpg) be ok?

  10. #10
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    Too many pop-up ads, sorry. Next time just attach the photo to your post.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Another few doubts here.

    Borderline weather conditions, any chance? Would these categorize as "night shot"...?

    1. never before seen her this dirty
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0077_HS-TGG.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	747.5 KB 
ID:	12687

    2. - smoky late TD, therefore aircraft to the left - OK?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9990_SU-GEJ.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	894.0 KB 
ID:	12686

    Later, hard sunlight with dark clouds in background. Contrast ok or too much?
    3.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0344_I-ADJU.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	771.1 KB 
ID:	12688
    4.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0243_A6-EOZ.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	840.1 KB 
ID:	12689

    Anything else I missed?

    Bad color reject, worked some more on that one
    5.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9484_HB-IZB_n.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	932.7 KB 
ID:	12690

    Thank you once more for your valuable pre-screening time

  12. #12
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    Another few doubts here.

    Borderline weather conditions, any chance? Would these categorize as "night shot"...?

    1. never before seen her this dirty
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0077_HS-TGG.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	747.5 KB 
ID:	12687

    2. - smoky late TD, therefore aircraft to the left - OK?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9990_SU-GEJ.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	894.0 KB 
ID:	12686

    Later, hard sunlight with dark clouds in background. Contrast ok or too much?
    3.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0344_I-ADJU.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	771.1 KB 
ID:	12688
    4.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0243_A6-EOZ.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	840.1 KB 
ID:	12689

    Anything else I missed?

    Bad color reject, worked some more on that one
    5.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9484_HB-IZB_n.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	932.7 KB 
ID:	12690

    Thank you once more for your valuable pre-screening time
    1. contrast
    2. contrast, borderline clutter/obstruction
    3. cut off
    4. ok
    5. ok

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Thank you!

    Will one of these versions work on the Thai?

    1. contrast increased a little
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0077_HS-TGG_more_contrast.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	806.5 KB 
ID:	12721

    2. contrast increased more
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0077_HS-TGG_much_more_contrast.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	825.0 KB 
ID:	12722

    Or would it need even more? Starts looking overprocessed then...

  14. #14
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    Thank you!

    Will one of these versions work on the Thai?

    1. contrast increased a little
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0077_HS-TGG_more_contrast.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	806.5 KB 
ID:	12721

    2. contrast increased more
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0077_HS-TGG_much_more_contrast.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	825.0 KB 
ID:	12722

    Or would it need even more? Starts looking overprocessed then...
    First is better, but still borderline for the marginal overall light.

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Freebird "golden" tail: does this one need "special scheme" category?
    Asking because their aircraft all have different tail colors - same question would apply to a few other airlines too, Norwegian or Alaska come to mind.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9384_TC-FBH.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	490.4 KB 
ID:	12918

  16. #16
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,455

    Default

    Not special for them or Norwegian, Alaska is a different case becausee afaik there's only 1 or 2 with the different/variation on tail and are special schemes.
    The picture is too blurry to be accepted unfortunately

    Regards
    Alex

  17. #17
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    Freebird "golden" tail: does this one need "special scheme" category?
    Asking because their aircraft all have different tail colors - same question would apply to a few other airlines too, Norwegian or Alaska come to mind.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9384_TC-FBH.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	490.4 KB 
ID:	12918
    If all the tails are different, then not special scheme. Norwegian, Frontier, etc.. do not receive special scheme category. Alaska..all the tails are the same, so not sure what you're talking about there.

  18. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    If all the tails are different, then not special scheme. Norwegian, Frontier, etc.. do not receive special scheme category. Alaska..all the tails are the same, so not sure what you're talking about there.
    Thank you Dana Mixed up Alaska and Frontier.

    Worked on some rejects, are the new versions ok now?
    1. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302088
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0344_I-ADJU_n.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	772.4 KB 
ID:	13049

    2. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302082
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0317_D-AIPC_n.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	939.4 KB 
ID:	13050

    3. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302079
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0289_UR-PSA_n.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	864.5 KB 
ID:	13051

    4. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302075
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0272_SU-GEJ_n.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	918.7 KB 
ID:	13052

    Thank you

  19. #19
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
    Thank you Dana Mixed up Alaska and Frontier.

    Worked on some rejects, are the new versions ok now?
    1. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302088
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0344_I-ADJU_n.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	772.4 KB 
ID:	13049

    2. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302082
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0317_D-AIPC_n.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	939.4 KB 
ID:	13050

    3. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302079
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0289_UR-PSA_n.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	864.5 KB 
ID:	13051

    4. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302075
    New: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0272_SU-GEJ_n.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	918.7 KB 
ID:	13052

    Thank you
    Exposure/sharpness looks ok on all, but the noise/compression is still noticeable in the sky, even on the ones that weren't originally rejected for noise.

  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Another round of doubts.

    Would this have a chance, the aircraft obviously not being centered?
    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0570_HS-TGW_Tower.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	710.1 KB 
ID:	13323

    Any missed issues on those?
    2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0589_HS-TGW.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	793.8 KB 
ID:	13325
    3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0591_HS-TGW.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	792.4 KB 
ID:	13326

    Difficult light conditions - good enough?
    4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0646_OE-LBZ.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	878.7 KB 
ID:	13327
    5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0869_TC-SNN.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	586.0 KB 
ID:	13328

    Thank you

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •