Hi there. I was doing relatively well here in airliners and had a few photos accepted to the database. But now I'm just getting one rejection after another which is frustrating. I don't know what I'm doing wrong because I'm not really doing anything different (in terms of both editing and camera settings) with regards to the rejected photos as opposed to the ones that got accepted. Please help.
Here is an example of one of my photos that just recently got rejected.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 37c4c966ed
The reasons given are low contrast and over exposed
Here is another that also got rejected.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9703f0213d
Reasons given are low contrast and CW rotation
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- 45272455674
- Posts: 7732
- Joined:
Re: Photo rejection
First one indeed looks over-exposed, low contrast yes I do agree with.
Second one, I can't quite see the need for CW rotation, but it does indeed have low contrast. As for the rotation, I'd be interested to know the reference point.
You may get more assistance in the feedback forum however. Perhaps the powers that be might move your topic and let you know when it is done.
Second one, I can't quite see the need for CW rotation, but it does indeed have low contrast. As for the rotation, I'd be interested to know the reference point.
You may get more assistance in the feedback forum however. Perhaps the powers that be might move your topic and let you know when it is done.
Re: Photo rejection
Have to partially disagree with Chris on the first one. It's low-contrast, and has a very flat look, but it's far from overexposed. Actually a bit dark if anything. Can definitely use more contrast, though, and looks a bit oversharpened to me as well.
The second is definitely low-contrast, and I'd say dark too. Also a bit of a blue cast to my eye. I agree with the CW rotation as well, given the angle of the shot.
EDIT: I also think the first one could use some CW as well.
The second is definitely low-contrast, and I'd say dark too. Also a bit of a blue cast to my eye. I agree with the CW rotation as well, given the angle of the shot.
EDIT: I also think the first one could use some CW as well.
-
- afroaviator
- Posts: 16
- Joined:
Re: Photo rejection
Thank you for response. I'll see if I can fix them and upload them again.
Would it be okay if I can send the original RAW file of the second one that needs CW rotation?
Would it be okay if I can send the original RAW file of the second one that needs CW rotation?
Re: Photo rejection
I'm with Vik - first one is bright but not over-exposed ('over-exposed' seems to be a substitute for 'too bright for our liking' here). I'm also not convinced it lacks contrast as the whites look pretty good to me; that said, extra contrast would look better. I'd be tempted to darken it a touch (and in doing so, improving contrast by default), as contrast alone will likely exacerbate any brightness issue.
The second definitely appears to need CW - the taxiway beyond the runway slopes from right to left; in reality, given the angle, I'd expect it to be sloping the other way. Exposure looks okay to me, although I tend to agree that a boost of contrast would be beneficial.
Karl
The second definitely appears to need CW - the taxiway beyond the runway slopes from right to left; in reality, given the angle, I'd expect it to be sloping the other way. Exposure looks okay to me, although I tend to agree that a boost of contrast would be beneficial.
Karl
-
- afroaviator
- Posts: 16
- Joined:
Re: Photo rejection
Thank you Karl. I really appreciate the feedback.
Re: Photo rejection
Thread locked, as there is a duplicate in the Feedback Forum now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests