Color (Hue): The hue (color cast) of the photo is poor

[scarbo]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...69&key=6351983

This is one of those times when the first submission gets rejected for something (in this case, horizon unlevel, which I fixed and then resubmitted) and then gets rejected again for something which didn't come up the first time.

I've never gotten this comment before. Also, even though it says "Please see the screener comments field for suggestions on how this may be fixed.", I don't see any screener comments.

Two questions:
1. Where do I need to look to see the screener comments?
2. Any idea how to fix this, if the screener comments don't actually exist or aren't any help?

I thought it was a cool picture (obviously), but I don't know what color they're thinking inappropriately dominates. I thought the contrast between the dark sky in the background and the sunlit locomotives was pretty cool, myself.

Thanks for your time!

Matt Chapman

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by scarbo

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...69&key=6351983



Two questions:
1. Where do I need to look to see the screener comments?
2. Any idea how to fix this, if the screener comments don't actually exist or aren't any help?

Welcome to reality! Seriously, you have a better chance of finding The Lost Dutchman or spotting Bigfoot than getting screener comments. Multiple rejections? They do it all the time. Just the way it is here.

As for your shot, the crossbuck is nice and white, as it should be. Auto-adjust made no changes, so maybe someone is screening on a phone again.

[JimThias]

Matt, do you have a frame before the pole was growing out of the cab?

[Dennis A. Livesey]

I find most color and contrast problems go away if the histogram is correct.

[jac_murphy]

Can't help but feel like the faded lead unit might be throwing off the screeners here. Also would recommend cloning out the things protruding into the sky from the left-hand side of the frame.

-Jacques

[miningcamper1]

Try cooling the color temperature a little and see if that flies.

[MagnumForce]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Matt, do you have a frame before the pole was growing out of the cab?

He says it was stopped in the caption.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

He says it was stopped in the caption.

You sure about that?

As soon as it got the signal and started forward, the sun came out from behind a cloud and basked the locomotives in bright light.

I took that sentence as implying the train was moving when he grabbed the shot.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Matt, do you have a frame before the pole was growing out of the cab?

I agree. A bit too much clutter in the scene.

Loyd L.

[JRMDC]

Oversharpened - look at the haloing around the central wire, right edge of the pole.

[scarbo]

Thanks, folks, great comments.

Regarding the histogram, I wouldn't know a "correct" histogram if it bit me.

I'll see what I can do about the clutter, sharpening, etc.


Thanks again!

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by scarbo

Thanks, folks, great comments.

Regarding the histogram, I wouldn't know a "correct" histogram if it bit me.

Here you go:

http://digital-photography-school.co...se-histograms/

This is about the most ideal you can you get:

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Here you go:

http://digital-photography-school.co...se-histograms/

This is about the most ideal you can you get:

Wow, I checked a typical sun-over-the-shoulder wedgie for histogram, and it's nothing like that sugarloaf mountain histogram you posted. Too bad the author didn't show the photos with the histograms. She also went to a lot of trouble to make her cathedral shot dull-looking.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Wow, I checked a typical sun-over-the-shoulder wedgie for histogram, and it's nothing like that sugarloaf mountain histogram you posted. Too bad the author didn't show the photos with the histograms. She also went to a lot of trouble to make her cathedral shot dull-looking.

No reason to criticize the author, as the concept of the "ideal" histogram is nothing the author created. I'm pretty sure you'd see something close to that on any photography-based website covering the topic of the histogram.

Can you post a pic of the histogram for your sun-over-the-shoulder wedgie that looks nothing like that?

Here is mine:

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

No reason to criticize..

It appears to be his forte.

Loyd L.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

It appears to be his forte.

Loyd L.

Actually, I'm very much with the accept more and let the viewers judge viewpoint.

BTW- look at who the call-out kings are. Certainly not me.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by JimThias

No reason to criticize the author, as the concept of the "ideal" histogram is nothing the author created. I'm pretty sure you'd see something close to that on any photography-based website covering the topic of the histogram.

Can you post a pic of the histogram for your sun-over-the-shoulder wedgie that looks nothing like that?

Here is mine:

Attachment 8757

I found a few with that ideal histogram, but not here. They were all available light HDRs of abandoned building interiors. Seems to me shots that flat wouldn't get past the screeners.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Actually, I'm very much with the accept more and let the viewers judge viewpoint.

BTW- look at who the call-out kings are. Certainly not me.

You are certainly pro-photographer; hence the inference was related to your posts towards the screeners, guidelines, and policies of the website we so love.

Loyd L.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

website we so love.

Loyd L.

But of course I love the site. Who could think otherwise?

[JimThias]

Here's another nearly ideal histogram from today's sun-over-the-shoulder shot. Yeah, boring Amtrak shot in a boring location. That's not up for debate.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Here's another nearly ideal histogram from today's sun-over-the-shoulder shot. Yeah, boring Amtrak shot in a boring location. That's not up for debate.

Attachment 8762

Well...those who find the histogram useful, whatever works is good.

I prefer eyes: Looks good/Doesn't look good, (go to gamma slider).

[MagnumForce]

I don't even look at the histogram...

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

I don't even look at the histogram...

I will view it on camera only if I'm shooting a complicated lighting situation.

Loyd L.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Well...those who find the histogram useful, whatever works is good.

I prefer eyes: Looks good/Doesn't look good, (go to gamma slider).

Looks good where? Why wouldn't you take advantage of a simple, useful tool that the camera has to offer? A camera's screen can be deceiving upon review, but the histogram is much more accurate in representing the best possible exposure.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Looks good where? Why wouldn't you take advantage of a simple, useful tool that the camera has to offer? A camera's screen can be deceiving upon review, but the histogram is much more accurate in representing the best possible exposure.

I see we're comparing apples and oranges. I was talking about the finished product after scanning, resizing etc.
If you have time in the field to check your settings, fine.
I remember the days when some advocated lugging a gray card around. I found it cumbersome and tricky to hold just right regarding the sun angle. It wound up in the junk drawer along with the fisheye attachment, starburst filter, Cokin filters etc. Spot meter was great if time allowed.