Home » Forums » Military aviation » under-exposed
under-exposed
Please visit and post in our new forum.
Bartek Kolanko   Member Joined in January 2016 Posts: 8 |
Posted 28 August 2018 - 11:43 CET |
|
Hello. I have a question why my pictures are rejected by under-exposed when other worse (ie worse, not illuminated) come without a problem. Here are examples of mine.
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2018-8/1103215.jpg
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2018-8/1102399.jpg |
PrestonFiedler Member Joined in June 2014 Posts: 65 |
Posted 28 August 2018 - 23:31 CET |
|
IMO, the F-16 is a bit dark/flat/soft/blurry, I do not see much issue with the Orlik beyond a little noise (hit or miss on noise, some particular screeners want images to look like fake glass, some tolerate reasonable noise, imo this is reasonable). It could take a bit more brightness, but I don't feel as thought its underexposed. |
|
Bartek Kolanko Member Joined in January 2016 Posts: 8 |
Posted 30 August 2018 - 14:41 CET |
|
Next photo under-exposed ....
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2018-8/1104209.jpg |
Szymon Bochyński  Member Joined in March 2013 Posts: 11 |
Posted 30 August 2018 - 15:37 CET |
|
I think it is the time to fix or buy a new screen for editor. IMO none of that photos is under-exposed. The one from your last post is even a little overlit for me. |
Igor Kmet   Full member Joined in September 2013 Posts: 99 |
Posted 30 August 2018 - 19:39 CET |
|
Areas where is picture underexposed. Screeners are right... Attached photos:  |
Manuel Domínguez   Full member Joined in March 2014 Posts: 46 |
Posted 31 August 2018 - 00:37 CET |
|
Igor try this please, set red and blue lightness to +1, and you will see that those areas no longer exist, but the picture looks exactly the same, so I assume that then, according to you, the picture would be correctly exposed and the screener would be wrong even screening the same picture?
Bartek, increase the brightness of the picture a bit (+10 in PS or so) and although you will have clipped highlights in some edges, I think the pic will look better. It could be then rejected for overexposed, but you know sometimes screening is a bit hit and miss.
Cheers. |
|
Igor Kmet Full member Joined in September 2013 Posts: 99 |
Posted 31 August 2018 - 08:05 CET |
|
Manuel, if you change EV in RAW result will be similar :-). IMHO the screeners goal is to teach photografer not forget and avoid big areas without any info (0,0,0 or 255,255,255 it means clipped, or under and overexposed ) especaily in main object , what is case in Barteks picture.Sometimes, f.e in direct sun in the midday , is difficult to avoid under and overexposition ( especially if DR of chip is small). How big under or overexposed area is accepted is pure decission of the screeners and fphotografer should learn accept it or appeal with adequate reason for it. |
|
Bartek Kolanko Member Joined in January 2016 Posts: 8 |
Posted 31 August 2018 - 13:51 CET |
|
Igor everything is great, since mine is "underexposed" I will ask about these:
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/1103526/yl-ksh-baltic-bees-jet-team-aero-l-39c-albatros/
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/1102356/047-poland-air-force-quot-orlik-acrobatic-group-quot-pzl-130-orlik-tc-1-2/
And how is it underexposed compared to mine?
|
This topic is locked.