Airplane Pictures home

Home » Forums » Military aviation » under-exposed

under-exposed

Bartek Kolanko 

Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 5
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: 5
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: 90
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: 45
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: 90
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: 5
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?

Jump to the top

Log in to post in the forum.

Terms and Conditions | About | FAQ | Photo Use | Privacy Policy | Online 911 (69 members)
© 2006-2018 Airplane-Pictures.net | E-mail us: Team@Airplane-Pictures.net
All photos are copyright © to their respective photographers and may not be used without permission.