RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Overexposed (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18407)

18 316 02-26-2021 05:20 PM

Overexposed
 
2 Attachment(s)
Yesterday, this photo was rejected for being "Overexposed". Do you have ideas why exactly?

Here is the histogram of the original image, which was actually slightly underexposed:

Attachment 9868

Here is the histogram of the uploaded version:

Attachment 9869

So I see no actual overexposure. Examining the image for areas where detail is lost, I see just one: the cement silo wagons at the end of the train (I could correct that with a local brightness manipulation). Or have I over-done the highlights/shadows correction (tree on the right)? Or something else entirely?

KevinM 02-26-2021 05:28 PM

Overexposed? No. Too bright? That's a matter of opinion, but I think that is where the screener was going. I don't think he's imagining blown out areas. I think he just believes this image is a couple tenths of a stop too bright, that's all. As someone who used to err on the side of brightness, I have changed my own tune a bit in the last couple of years. I've re-edited a ton of my own pictures. Bring it down a couple of tenths and let's see what it looks like. I don't think it will look dark, but I do think the sky and the brighter areas will be easier on the eyes.

br_railphotos 02-26-2021 06:04 PM

I like that shot.

While not over exposed, I can see where the screener was going. The sky on the left gives the impression of being too bright. Possibly the highlights on the locomotives, as well. Looking at the histogram, the majority of the pixels do weigh (slightly) on the bright side.

IF it were my photo, and I were to accommodate the screener’s thoughts, I would likely try the following: Notch the exposure down slightly (perhaps -0.08?). Add a gradient adjustment over the sky (ACR) and pull the highlights a tad. Then pull the blue and cyan luminance sliders a hair. Don’t go too far, as doing so can begin to give a fake or patchy appearance.

You’ll end up with no true white point, but blue sky doesn’t necessarily need to have a white point.

Again, just my take on it.

18 316 02-26-2021 08:13 PM

KevinM, br_railphotos, thanks for the suggestions! I hoped the problem is not something that cannot be addressed with a little editing (unlike my other "Overexposed" a week ago). I will take my time experimenting with what looks best.

RobJor 02-26-2021 09:43 PM

I usually don't over think it. They say overexposed I bring it down a little, provide a note in the comments and hope for the best. Too much editing can ruin the best image.

I think it is really nice image that they will want to accept? I am fine with it but looks like later/earlier in day by the way the sky looks and could be a little bright.
I guess there is this angst now about too many rejections and that is too bad, hard to try your trying your best .

Bob Jrdan

18 316 02-27-2021 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 197422)
looks like later/earlier in day by the way the sky looks and could be a little bright.

Yes, this wasn't the most ideal lights: I shot it at 09:43 local time, and moisture must have contributed to a bright sky. br_railphotos also mentioned the sky. So while I changed multiple things, the biggest change was selectively darkening the sky and also changing its hue. Perhaps not ideal because I did not change the hue of its reflection only brought down highlights on it), but it was a different hue anyway. At any rate, I re-submitted after said edits and it was good enough for the screeners:

[photoid=764521]

Again thanks everyone for the advice & suggestions.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.