Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Night Shot Underexposure

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

  • Night Shot Underexposure

    This image was recently rejected for being underexposed.

    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


    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.

    B-6090. Airbus A330-243. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


    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 Files

  • #2
    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

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            C-FNOG. Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


            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...…

            Comment


            • #7
              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:
              Nice winter light on the Tunisair RetroJet.. TS-IOP. Boeing 737-6H3. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


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

              The same with this one:
              Nice visitor, visibly heading to US by the Northern Road.. 7T-VBE. Beechcraft B200GT Super King Air. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


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

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X