Rejected as Overexposed, But I See No Clipping

[abr]

I had two images rejected as overexposed. Looking at the histograms for each image in Lightroom, I don't see any signs of clipping. They were uploaded and reviewed at roughly the same time, so I would imagine the same screener rejected both.

ACS-65 #633: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...79&key=2143678
ALP-45DP #4527: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...84&key=1530680

The histograms for each are attached (633 should be the first file and 4627 the second). Do one or both images warrant an appeal? If adjustments are required, should I simply decrease the exposure or are there particular tones or aspects like contrast that I need to fine tune?

If there are any other issues I should be aware of, please let me know about them as well. Thanks in advance!

[SAR Connecta]

Visually I have to agree with screener on both counts and neither warrant appeals in my opinion.

[miningcamper1]

Histogram: a solution in search of a problem if there ever was one!

[I'll be in my bunker until any missile danger passes!]

[Decapod401]

I would try moving the white slider to the left quite a bit, and then add some contrast if needed.

[wds]

In addition to what's been mentioned they might have a problem with the platform obstructing the lower part of the train in the first shot. Whether it's justifiable or not, we have seen it happen before.

[JRMDC]

Funny, miningcamper! OP, the histogram tells you everything you need to know. Hint: clipping is not the same thing as overexposure.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Funny, miningcamper!

Suppose that I like to photograph black cats in coal bins or Arctic hares in snowstorms. What does the histogram tell me that I can't see on my monitor?

[wds]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Suppose that I like to photograph black cats in coal bins or Arctic hares in snowstorms. What does the histogram tell me that I can't see on my monitor?

I remember reading a tutorial on histograms when I first started digital and was wondering what the hell those things meant. The one and only line that stands out in my mind is this: "A histogram is neither right nor wrong - it just is." Pretty much sums it up I figure!

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by wds

I remember reading a tutorial on histograms when I first started digital and was wondering what the hell those things meant. The one and only line that stands out in my mind is this: "A histogram is neither right nor wrong - it just is." Pretty much sums it up I figure!

Just for fun, I put a bunch of fluffy white clouds in the rejected NJT shot. It resulted in a very different histogram. What exactly that difference was telling me about the rest of the photo is a mystery!

[KevinM]

Although a histogram is a very useful tool for processing an image, it is not the be-all, end-all. You need to be looking at a reasonably well-calibrated screen and you need to use your eyes to examine all of the elements in the scene. The highlights do not have to be clipped for an image to be overexposed. In the case of the images cited in the opening post of this thread, the first thing I noticed was the sky. The blue was pretty pale to my eye. Too bright. I would grab the "Lights" slider in the Lightroom Tone Curve, and pull it back -30 to -45 and see what that looks like.

[JRMDC]

A histogram is a useful tool, and like all tools, it is more useful to some than to others. Some with better eyes than me can essentially self-histogram by looking at a shot. I find it a useful aid to my eye.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

A histogram is a useful tool, and like all tools, it is more useful to some than to others. Some with better eyes than me can essentially self-histogram by looking at a shot. I find it a useful aid to my eye.

Fair enough, but I have yet to see a tutorial that explains that usefulness adequately. It seems like a moving goalpost.

[ATSF666]

They are great when out shooting - take some test shots and evaluate what the sensor is capturing. I don't pay much attention to them when I am processing the results.

[bigbassloyd]

http://offhollywoodreporter.com/blog...ummies-experts

Loyd L.

[Joe the Photog]

It would have been quicker and easier to adjust the brightness down and resubmit than starting this thread since the shot is overexposed.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

It would have been quicker and easier to adjust the brightness down and resubmit than starting this thread since the shot is overexposed.

Sure, but no one was obligated to reply, correct?

[abr]

Thanks for the input. Both have been accepted to the database after making the appropriate adjustments. Your comments have given me some additional things to be mindful of in working with Lightroom and reviewing my edits.

PhotoID: 619001 Photograph © Adam B. Reich

PhotoID: 619331 Photograph © Adam B. Reich

With some rejections, I prefer to run them through the forum before resubmitting. Sometimes there may be other issues beyond the one specified by the screener as the basis for a rejection, so I value having more trained eyes look at an image and alert me to any other problems. Since I'm not as established on this site as many of you are, I also want to tread carefully in dealing with rejected images.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by abr

With some rejections, I prefer to run them through the forum before resubmitting. Sometimes there may be other issues beyond the one specified by the screener as the basis for a rejection, so I value having more trained eyes look at an image and alert me to any other problems. Since I'm not as established on this site as many of you are, I also want to tread carefully in dealing with rejected images.

Hi Adam,

I think that's a smart thing to do. When you are relatively new to RP, the more sets of eyes, the better. Too many folks make their entrance by submitting a lot of sub-par images and getting defensive, appealing all of their rejections and perhaps even sending nasty e-mails to Admin. It often doesn't take long for them to wear out their welcome and they get banned. When your goal is to get your images posted on someone else's website, you have to keep in mind that they make the rules, so you have to do everything you can do to conform. It is important to minimize the number of submissions and maximize the quality of each, hopefully showing continuous improvement. Soliciting feedback from folks who have the "recipe" figured out is a great way to do that.

[miningcamper1]

The screeners here seem to have a preference for dark photos. I expected auto-adjust to lighten the Amtrak accepted shot, and sure enough it did just that.

[John West]

I look at the histogram as a tool for making sure as much data as possible is recorded by the camera. Clipping to me means that data is lost, either highlights are blown out or shadow detail is lost. Some times capturing all the data means an over or under exposed image in terms of what the eye sees. That is why we run the images through Photoshop, Lightroom, or some other similar program to adjust the "exposure", which may in some cases include darkening the highlights and lightening the shadow areas. That is my theory, interested how others see it.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by John West

I look at the histogram as a tool for making sure as much data as possible is recorded by the camera. Clipping to me means that data is lost, either highlights are blown out or shadow detail is lost. Some times capturing all the data means an over or under exposed image in terms of what the eye sees. That is why we run the images through Photoshop, Lightroom, or some other similar program to adjust the "exposure", which may in some cases include darkening the highlights and lightening the shadow areas. That is my theory, interested how others see it.

"Expose for the highlights, let the shadows fall where they may". Do you really need a histogram when you have a spotmeter? [There I go again...]
Blown highlights are hopeless unless you can replace them somehow. Shadows may or may not be blocked up, blotchy, or contain other horrible artifacts like red or green pixels.
And yes, shadows and highlights adjustments, as well as gamma adjustments are indispensable to me. That's why I uninstalled the latest version of Windows 10, because Microsoft went with a new editor which has all preset modes or effects.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Blown highlights are hopeless unless you can replace them somehow. Shadows may or may not be blocked up, blotchy, or contain other horrible artifacts like red or green pixels.

Not when you own a Nikon!

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by KevinM

Not when you own a Nikon!

Or any camera that produces an exportable raw file...

Loyd L.

[miningcamper1]

Of course I was referring to situations where you are working with what you've got. Blown highlights, blocked shadows or artifacts.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Blown highlights are hopeless unless you can replace them somehow. Shadows may or may not be blocked up, blotchy, or contain other horrible artifacts like red or green pixels.

Originally Posted by KevinM

Not when you own a Nikon!

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Or any camera that produces an exportable raw file...

Loyd L.

Nope... you have to have a camera /sensor that is capbable of capturing the detail that you are hoping to recover. Aka; a camera with a high dynamic range which Sony offers and Nikon uses. Nikon and Sony are up around 14.5 stops where as ALL Canon's prior to the 80D and 5D Mark IV are at a rather pathetic 11.6. The latest crop of Canon cameras are MUCH better at 13.7 but still no match compared to Nikon's offerings of the last 2 to 4 years.


As for the Histogram - John West nailed it.

Plain and simple - if your histogram shows clipped peaks - that is in fact where you have over and /or underexposed part of an image to such an extent there is no longer ANY detail to be retrieved.

/Mitch