Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Night Shot Underexposure

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14

    Default Night Shot Underexposure

    This image was recently rejected for being underexposed.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7304935

    When I appealed, I received a sarcastic " did you take the time to check the histogram before appealing?" comment.

    Since the email inbox doesn't appear to accept replies, I can only respond here.

    Yes I did. In fact, I even checked the histogram before originally submitting the image. With over 1,400 accepted images I think I know how to do that.


    I didn't brighten the image because it was taken at dusk, in literally the last sunrays of the day. Hence why I ticked the "night shot" box. Were I to adjust the exposure to the normal daylight standards it would like something like this, which in my opinion is wholly unnatural.

    Having looked through accepted night shot images on the site, it wasn't difficult to find one taken in similar light to my own.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9319275

    This appears to be slightly darker than mine, but the histogram is altered by sunlight reflections on the leading edge slats. Such a small area of light makes no difference to the overall exposure, so why is one image acceptable and the other isn't?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C-FNOG JP.jpg 
Views:	113 
Size:	422.6 KB 
ID:	24745  

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    60

    Default

    In my experience this is exactly the type of light that makes the JP histogram go haywire. I.e. the type of picture where my photo editors would show the histogram touching the right hand corner but when I upload, the JP tool would show a huge gap (as in your rejection window). In the past I have gone back and forth a bunch of times brightening the picture until the JP histogram looked good and the photo was accepted. However I would ultimately regret uploading it since the photo inevitably ends up looking awful (clearly overexposed) despite the acceptance worthy JP histogram.

    Alex

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I'm not too great at reading histograms but it it looks like there is nothing on the Jetphotos histogram for a good chunk of the right side. My guess is that is what's causing this. And I have had several problems where the Jetphotos histogram is very different from the photoshop histogram. It's really annoying.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Thank you for the replies.

    You're both correct in regard to the histogram.

    However, my point is that for a dusk / night shot the histogram should not be used as to do so would lead to a clearly overexposed image, even though that image met the standards required by the site. Hence the brightened example I provided.

    I would appreciate a comment from the crew, together with an explanation of why the similarly-lit example is deemed acceptable.

  5. #5
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snddim01 View Post
    Thank you for the replies.

    You're both correct in regard to the histogram.

    However, my point is that for a dusk / night shot the histogram should not be used as to do so would lead to a clearly overexposed image, even though that image met the standards required by the site. Hence the brightened example I provided.

    I would appreciate a comment from the crew, together with an explanation of why the similarly-lit example is deemed acceptable.
    The photo is indeed too dark, even for a sunset shot, no matter if you check the histogram or not. You can get a properly exposed photo still showing the sunset lights and colours.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LX-A343 View Post
    The photo is indeed too dark, even for a sunset shot, no matter if you check the histogram or not. You can get a properly exposed photo still showing the sunset lights and colours.
    I suppose it depends on your definition of properly exposed.

    To me, proper exposure means the camera is set up so that the image recorded looks exactly the same as it did to the human eye when it was taken. (This can obviously be adjusted in post-processing if you shoot raw)

    Jet Photos appear to have a different definition, particularly for sunset shots. Fair enough. This is your site and you can impose whatever parameters you see fit.

    However, I'm politely suggesting that your definition is wrong. As evidence, I submit the re-edited image which your screeners accepted a short time ago. It is now part of your database.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9331652

    Although I took it, I think it's now a horrible image. It's overexposed, looks unnatural and bears no relation to the lighting on the aircraft when I pressed the shutter.

    But it's what you wanted and approved...…

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I definitely agree!
    I have the same point of view, eventhough my case is the exact opposite.

    I shot the Tunisair Retrojet (TS-IOP) on a bright, clear February late morning sun:

    my photo got rejected because of "Overexposed" , I had to dramatically decrease the exposure to get it accepted.
    Now it's in the database but looks more like I shot it on a late afternoon of september or October:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9258498

    Definitely not the scene I had in front of me when I clicked.

    The same with this one:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9325842

    horribly underexposed to my opinion, but my view of the scene was rejected because of "overexposed".

  8. #8
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snddim01 View Post
    I suppose it depends on your definition of properly exposed.

    To me, proper exposure means the camera is set up so that the image recorded looks exactly the same as it did to the human eye when it was taken.
    ... Which is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve. Think about it:
    - the eye has far more dynamic range than a regular sensor
    - you will hardly see two identical exposed photos of the same subject, yet every photographer will tell you the photo looks the same as the subject the looked to the human eye
    - the eye adopts itself to any light conditions, so does a camera ... both of course with different algorhythms

    and so on ...

    you can rant as much as you want. At the end of the day, we are human beings screening photos and trying to apply equal guidelines for all.

  9. #9
    Member mahagonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Bari
    Posts
    399

    Default

    agreeing to upload photos to JP also implies that you comply with its standards. However, I also have the impression, in some cases, that the "commercial" spirit prevails over the artistic spirit. But it's my idea.
    Excuse my bad English.

Posting Permissions

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