03-01-2012, 11:49 PM
|
#2
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 587
|
Picture looks really good on my monitor. I would guess they want a little more color, if anything, though I don't see it needs it. Nice picture!
|
|
|
|
03-02-2012, 12:37 PM
|
#3
|
|
Part-Time Railfan
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,234
|
they want more vibrant colors.
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2012, 03:36 PM
|
#4
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 623
|
I tried again using the JPEG original.
With the reject I had isolated the sky and background and used the "auto levels". I think that threw it off.
Accepted:  | PhotoID: 391057
Photograph © Jim Dorst |
__________________
Cheers, Jim.
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2012, 05:30 PM
|
#5
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bolivar, MO
Posts: 243
|
Accepted version is much better Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2012, 01:12 AM
|
#6
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 7,998
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rathman11
Accepted version is much better Jim.
|
I disagree. A-B the two and you'll see the rejection is more vibrant and colorful. The sky is bluer and the trees are greener, while the accepted version looks flat.
Jim pulled a fast one over on the screeners here. 
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2012, 01:20 AM
|
#7
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,894
|
I'm with Jim. The rejected shot is a bit more vibrant. It is also slightly brighter, and it has a purer white in the snow.
I wonder if in fact the entire difference is because of the slight increase in brightness. Brightness can lead to vibrancy and color.
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2012, 03:12 PM
|
#8
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bolivar, MO
Posts: 243
|
I guess this is one where we will have to disagree. Rejected version looks flat on my monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2012, 12:28 PM
|
#9
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,355
|
They both look a bit too flat for me, but the rejected one looked better on my monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2012, 09:47 PM
|
#10
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 623
|
 I think I'm going to have to hire a photo editor.
Interesting to see the differing opinions here. Thanks guys.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2012, 09:50 PM
|
#11
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Jim pulled a fast one over on the screeners here. |
Well Jim, that wasn't intentional.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2012, 02:34 AM
|
#12
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 7,998
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Well Jim, that wasn't intentional.
|
I know, but the thought made me chuckle for a moment. 
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2012, 04:11 AM
|
#13
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 623
|
Well, after reading the posts I went back and tweaked the white balance and brightness and re-submitted the photo.
Looks much better - thanks for the comments.
| PhotoID: 391057
Photograph © Jim Dorst |
__________________
Cheers, Jim.
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 AM.
|
Colour consultation
