Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AndrewC75 - Prescreening Request
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by AndrewC75 View PostI know this one isn't awash in sun.... It's nearing dusk and the sun in on the starboard bow, but I personally love the composition and the contrast against the cloudy sky. Might it be accepted, or is this one for the personal collection?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28221[/ATTACH]
-
(I think I started another thread on this because I couldn't find this one... but now the other thread seems to have been deleted, I presume because this one exists, so I'll repost here.)
Rejected for overexposed, but I can't spot the overexposure. I feel like the exposure is true to the light of the moment. Pre-screen for a possible re-edit or appeal?
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Comment
-
Originally posted by AndrewC75 View Post(I think I started another thread on this because I couldn't find this one... but now the other thread seems to have been deleted, I presume because this one exists, so I'll repost here.)
Rejected for overexposed, but I can't spot the overexposure. I feel like the exposure is true to the light of the moment. Pre-screen for a possible re-edit or appeal?
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Comment
-
Hi everyone. This was rejected for Over processed/Bad post processing. I went back and looked at the raw in DPP4 and I added .67 EV and +2 on shadows. For post processing I used my normal and workflow to crop, adjust levels, and sharpen for which I've been rewarded with a 76% acceptance rate. Where did I go wrong? I'm a little new to raw pre-processing so I suspect this rejection may be a result of that, and admittedly this shot was less than ideal (slighly underexposed and softer than I'd like) out of the camera but salvageable for a unique aircraft. Thanks in advance for your advice.
Rejected photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10615202
Before/ after comparison in DPP4:
Comment
-
Originally posted by AndrewC75 View PostHi everyone. This was rejected for Over processed/Bad post processing. I went back and looked at the raw in DPP4 and I added .67 EV and +2 on shadows. For post processing I used my normal and workflow to crop, adjust levels, and sharpen for which I've been rewarded with a 76% acceptance rate. Where did I go wrong? I'm a little new to raw pre-processing so I suspect this rejection may be a result of that, and admittedly this shot was less than ideal (slighly underexposed and softer than I'd like) out of the camera but salvageable for a unique aircraft. Thanks in advance for your advice.
Rejected photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10615202
Also, please bookmark your thread so I don't need to keep moving your posts
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by AndrewC75 View PostHi everyone. This was rejected for Over processed/Bad post processing. I went back and looked at the raw in DPP4 and I added .67 EV and +2 on shadows. For post processing I used my normal and workflow to crop, adjust levels, and sharpen for which I've been rewarded with a 76% acceptance rate. Where did I go wrong? I'm a little new to raw pre-processing so I suspect this rejection may be a result of that, and admittedly this shot was less than ideal (slighly underexposed and softer than I'd like) out of the camera but salvageable for a unique aircraft. Thanks in advance for your advice.
Rejected photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10615202
Before/ after comparison in DPP4:
Comment
-
Originally posted by JuklicekCZ View Post
I would also add, that there is a very obvious dust spot at the bottom of the picture, not sure, how the screenerer could miss it.
Might want to be extra certain in the future before commenting on anything you can't be sure 'how the screened could miss it'
Comment
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
Because it looks nothing like a dust spot? Obviously the tail of another aircraft or something else.
Might want to be extra certain in the future before commenting on anything you can't be sure 'how the screened could miss it'
And to be honest, we are all humans, so I thought it could have been just overlooked although I also assumed, that screeners are much more used to looking for such things. But again I did not mean it anyhow in a bad way.
Comment
Comment