Am kinda surprised by the results, can someone please explain.
All of these images are underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 703958088f
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6997d4a4b3
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a5f3523017
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 417154fede
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Post-Screened Images
Not underexposed but the light is harsh (the 'underexposed' reason likely being the screener's way of saying that). I think a couple could stand being brighter but you've got to be careful not to blow the tops of the fuselages (a couple are already nearing that point).
Karl
Karl
Re: Post-Screened Images
JakTrax wrote:Not underexposed but the light is harsh (the 'underexposed' reason likely being the screener's way of saying that).
Shouldn't be. That light is plenty acceptable for A.net.
Etihad could stand a bit of brightening. The other three seem fine, and I'd probably appeal them if "underexposed" was the only rejection reason.
Re: Post-Screened Images
Agree with vikkyvik. The light is pretty good except maybe South African 343. Etihad and 738 could be slightly brighter.
Jike
Jike
Re: Post-Screened Images
Certainly not bad, but for me also a little underexposed. They all could use some 0.15-0.20 exposure I think.
Re: Post-Screened Images
Thank you everybody for your responses, I will re-edit them using the advice
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests