Hello,

With the announcement of the creative team for photographers pushing their equipment and skills, I figured it would be a bit easier to work with the site for those first rays of sunshine. After about three days of in-screening with the High-Quality mark for multiple opinions I got four out of four rejected...


Air India 77W:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 56ac988339
Rejection Reasons: Blurry/Colour/Personal (too red, sorry)/Underexposed

Full size original jpeg with nothing touched: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 51/sizes/l That right there doesn't look blurry. Color and Personal go together. The exposure and color are the natural color the picture was shot in. There really is nothing that could have been done different on this picture as it is within the first 5 minutes of daylight (5 minutes after the sun rose above the horizon). Now if the site just wants the exposure boosted but like 0.5 then okay, but the other reasons really make me wonder otherwise.

I decided to take a look and see what the site has accepted in the past...
Using two examples from a sunset. The first one taken less than 30 minutes before the sunset and the other taken just over 10 minutes before sunset. Both from the same photographer, same equipment, same location: In this example you will see a very strong green/cyan cast in one of the pictures. Yet both were accepted at nearly the same time. I would also argue there is an overexposure in the one just 10 minutes for sunset.

Xtra Airways 738W:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... b542aac2fb
Rejection Reasons: Soft/Vignetting/Underexposed

The vignette in this image is strongly caused by the higher clouds that you will see in the sky. Only area with vignette might be that very top left corner. Exposure comes down to the same thing as Air India.

United Express E170:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9b1c59dba6
Rejection Reasons: Soft/Noise/Vignetting

Noise I don't really see and the vignette is actually high clouds in the sky. This then comes down to a subjective sharpening.

United Express Dash 8:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... d16ba1c211
Soft/Noise/Vignetting

I have the same feelings on this one as I do with the E170.


What are your thoughts on these?

len90 wrote:

That right there doesn't look blurry.

Looks soft toward the rear, but good enough to get a decent-size upload.

len90 wrote:

The exposure and color are the natural color the picture was shot in.

I'll be honest - you may as well forget about "the natural [exposure and] color the picture was shot in", if you intend to get photos accepted here. A.net has limits on how dark, and how color-cast-y, a photo can be.

The color of the AI shot doesn't bother me, but it could certainly be brighter (which will actually tone down the color, too). Not on my editing monitor, so not sure about quality, but it does look oversharpened, which is often paired with blurry.

len90 wrote:

The first one taken less than 30 minutes before the sunset and the other taken just over 10 minutes before sunset.

How do you know the times on those photos? That aside, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve by showing those photos.

For the other three photos, I agree with vignetting on all of them. Pretty noticeable on the right and left edges of the images, and does not appear to be completely cloud-related, given how consistent it is. I don't recall if you shoot full-frame, but vignetting is pretty common. I have my RAW converters (Canon DPP and Adobe Camera RAW) always set to lens-correct for vignetting.

I personally think all three of them could use some brightening for A.net standards.

Vik,

First off thank you for being the only one to chime in.

The use of an example: To showcase the extreme subjective nature of color cast rejections on those sunrise/sunset pictures. It is a lot easier than you think to find out around the time period a picture was taken. Trust me it didn't take me long to figure this out and I had known this even before my pictures were screened.

Gear used was full frame SLR with 100-400 L. What about the other reject reasons on them?

I'll chime in once my computer is fixed (if you can wait another week).

Thank you for the feedback, Len.

The Air India B777 does definitely has a overly red cast which looks unnatural and is also contextually a bit too dark IMO
Xtra: Again looks dark; I think you can increase the brightness and tone down the color a bit and still be able to convey the mood of the time of day.
United E170: Soft and Vignetting for sure. IMO it could use the same adjustments for brightness and color as I stated for the Xtra
United D8: Vignetting is minor, but I agree with the rest of the screener's feedback.

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Xtra: Again looks dark; I think you can increase the brightness and tone down the color a bit and still be able to convey the mood of the time of day.
Jehan

What about the vignette on this one?

Joshu wrote:

Thank you for the feedback, Len.

You're Welcome Would have been nice to hear your opinion and feedback as you seem to be able to get lots of low sun angle/golden hour shots accepted.

I've gotten a ton of them accepted, and mine tend to be more golden than Josh's that you posted (I wouldn't have guessed that either of those was a golden hour shot).

It's not too difficult. Get the color cast to what you think you saw live. Then reduce it to where you think it will be acceptable to A.net.

Then reduce it some more.

Then submit your photo.

Haha seems about right Vik. The only issue with the Air India is that it wasn't really golden yet. It was truly pink. I'll just increase the brightness a lot which in the end will take away a lot from the color. Shame the site really doesn't accept it to what you saw live. Reducing the color so much, to me, just makes it artificial then.

len90 wrote:

. The only issue with the Air India is that it wasn't really golden yet. It was truly pink.

Just apply what I said to any given color cast.

I thînk you need to strike a balance between what you recall seeing and what is considered aesthetically pleasing by a disinterested third party...e.g. Some one who was not there...including the screeners at a.net. If the image that is presented looks under exposed to a viewer who is seeing it for the first time, then it would be difficult to convince the viewer that the actual,conditions were just so. This hobby does have an aesthetic component which should also be considered. I'd try the edits suggested by Vik and offer it up for some opinions.

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

I thînk you need to strike a balance between what you recall seeing and what is considered aesthetically pleasing by a disinterested third party...e.g. Some one who was not there...including the screeners at a.net. If the image that is presented looks under exposed to a viewer who is seeing it for the first time, then it would be difficult to convince the viewer that the actual,conditions were just so. This hobby does have an aesthetic component which should also be considered. I'd try the edits suggested by Vik and offer it up for some opinions.

Jehan

I understand everything you are saying but your word choice of "disinterested third party" and including the screeners in that then really brings forward an issue. The screening team should have an interest. And if the site wants to have creative screening then aesthetics should be incorporated. I truly think (at least I hope) that the screeners understand dusk/dawn and how the lighting can change within seconds to minutes and it does give off natural strong casts.

len90 wrote:

jelpee wrote:

I thînk you need to strike a balance between what you recall seeing and what is considered aesthetically pleasing by a disinterested third party...e.g. Some one who was not there...including the screeners at a.net. If the image that is presented looks under exposed to a viewer who is seeing it for the first time, then it would be difficult to convince the viewer that the actual,conditions were just so. This hobby does have an aesthetic component which should also be considered. I'd try the edits suggested by Vik and offer it up for some opinions.

Jehan

I understand everything you are saying but your word choice of "disinterested third party" and including the screeners in that then really brings forward an issue. The screening team should have an interest. And if the site wants to have creative screening then aesthetics should be incorporated. I truly think (at least I hope) that the screeners understand dusk/dawn and how the lighting can change within seconds to minutes and it does give off natural strong casts.

Len,

My point is exactly that. IMO, the images you posted lack a certain aesthetic quality by seeming underexposed/dark. I believe this is one of the reasons they were not accepted. Adding some brightness in the editing would improve the aesthetics. BTW, My choice of words "disinterested party" deliberate was meant to mean an "unbiased party" not an "uninterested party."

Go ahead and give your self some artistic license on this one

Jehan

Joshu wrote:

Thank you for the feedback, Len.

You're Welcome Would have been nice to hear your opinion and feedback as you seem to be able to get lots of low sun angle/golden hour shots accepted.[/quote]

Here's what I do:
1) Adjust exposure in camera raw (mostly looking at the histogram)
2) Auto-level (Image>adjustsments > levels > auto
Now step two usually results in an insane cyan cast. A lot of my rejections are cyan
3) Adjust the color balance. This is an art and is not easy at all. Sometimes you have to adjust the hue.


Len, are you up in PHL? I'd like to spot with you sometime if you are up there
EDIT: I see you are in NYC - I'd sill like to meet up!

For what it's worth, I do see slight blur at the rear of the AI 77W. Definitely blur, rather than softness, so I'd be inclined to scrap that one if I were you, irrespective of any colour issues.

The others seem okay colour-wise, although they could all withstand quite a lot of brightening. The vignetting is easy enough to reduce.

Karl

Went with another frame from the AI and it went right through. Still waiting on the rest to go through screening.

len90 wrote:

Went with another frame from the AI and it went right through.

Since the new frame is less blurry, less red, and considerably brighter, it makes sense.

The original one was more aesthetically pleasing for me color-wise, but like I said, A.net likes photos a certain way.