Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: CornishAviation - Editing Advice

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default CornishAviation - Editing Advice

    Good evening all,

    Have just had some re-uploads rejected on JP. All were for the follow:


    • Dark / Underexposed
    • Bad Color (Over/Under Saturation, Hue)
    • Too much or too little contrast


    Prior to re-upload, the shots were a little dark, so I adjusted the exposure and reduced the saturation then reuploaded... the screeners comment on one of these rejects was a threat of banning if they weren't readjusted which I felt was a little harsh. Can someone please advise where I am going wrong?

    Here are the aforementioned images.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6371018
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6371016
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6371086

  2. #2
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornishAviation View Post
    Good evening all,

    Have just had some re-uploads rejected on JP. All were for the follow:


    • Dark / Underexposed
    • Bad Color (Over/Under Saturation, Hue)
    • Too much or too little contrast


    Prior to re-upload, the shots were a little dark, so I adjusted the exposure and reduced the saturation then reuploaded... the screeners comment on one of these rejects was a threat of banning if they weren't readjusted which I felt was a little harsh. Can someone please advise where I am going wrong?

    Here are the aforementioned images.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6371018
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6371016
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6371086
    The screener comment was due to you re-uploading the same rejected photo again without any improvements.

    Regarding colours, you have Adobe RGB as embedded colour space, which can result in colours looking off depending on systems used by the viewer (for example Firefox, depending on OS). So, ALWAYS save with sRGB as embedded colour space.

    Try to increase exposure a bit to get more highlights.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LX-A343 View Post
    The screener comment was due to you re-uploading the same rejected photo again without any improvements.

    Regarding colours, you have Adobe RGB as embedded colour space, which can result in colours looking off depending on systems used by the viewer (for example Firefox, depending on OS). So, ALWAYS save with sRGB as embedded colour space.

    Try to increase exposure a bit to get more highlights.
    They were adjusted but perhaps not significantly enough to notice a difference.

    Saturation reduced and exposure increased. Would these be accepted?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4076.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	940.6 KB 
ID:	13730   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_40401.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	869.3 KB 
ID:	13731   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0887.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	14.7 KB 
ID:	13732   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4031.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	855.8 KB 
ID:	13733   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4067.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	1.02 MB 
ID:	13734  


  4. #4
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornishAviation View Post
    They were adjusted but perhaps not significantly enough to notice a difference.

    Saturation reduced and exposure increased. Would these be accepted?
    No. Still wrong colour space.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LX-A343 View Post
    No. Still wrong colour space.
    Apologies. They're now all converted to sRGB...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4031.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	865.6 KB 
ID:	13736   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4067.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.13 MB 
ID:	13737   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_40401.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	1,006.0 KB 
ID:	13738   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4076.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	1.05 MB 
ID:	13739   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0887.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	1,014.8 KB 
ID:	13740  


  6. #6
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornishAviation View Post
    Apologies. They're now all converted to sRGB...
    Besides the obvious dust spots, these would all be rejected for the harsh contrast, sharpening issues (some too soft, others oversharpened), and potentially overprocessed (or vignetting) as the sky is darker in the top part of the frame than the rest. If you are applying some kind of filter to achieve this effect, please know that this is not allowed.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Besides the obvious dust spots, these would all be rejected for the harsh contrast, sharpening issues (some too soft, others oversharpened), and potentially overprocessed (or vignetting) as the sky is darker in the top part of the frame than the rest. If you are applying some kind of filter to achieve this effect, please know that this is not allowed.
    Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have started a fresh with the below image taking onboard your advise. If processed to this standard, would the rest/these be at an acceptable level?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4020.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	580.2 KB 
ID:	13747   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4076.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	641.8 KB 
ID:	13748  

  8. #8
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornishAviation View Post
    Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have started a fresh with the below image taking onboard your advise. If processed to this standard, would the rest/this one be at an acceptable level?
    Looks pretty close to being acceptable. There's a bit of noise visible, and could probably stand a touch more contrast but I don't think those are major issues.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Thanks for the prompt response. I'll add a touch of contrast and run through a noise filter and reupload. What categories would be required?

  10. #10
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornishAviation View Post
    Thanks for the prompt response. I'll add a touch of contrast and run through a noise filter and reupload. What categories would be required?
    The EK probably needs a little sharpening as well. I didn't see that attachment when I replied.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Just a quick one.... just uploaded the below pic and noticed it went straight into the screening queue? Is that because it's a new registration?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8868513

  12. #12
    JetPhotos.Net Crew Julian S.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    near EDFH, Germany
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornishAviation View Post
    Just a quick one.... just uploaded the below pic and noticed it went straight into the screening queue? Is that because it's a new registration?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8868513
    Yes, Registrations which are not in the database counts as hot automatically.
    Best Regards from Germany,
    Julian S.​

Posting Permissions

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