Backlit and Cloudy

[MassArt Images]

This one’s has me scratching my head a little. A rarely photographed 140 high by 1000ft long 122 year old trestle. Oh well, enjoy it here for a little while

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...99&key=9927994

[KevinM]

A few quick thoughts:

Trestles with railings are probably not going to fly with a close-up shot like this, particularly if the power is common. I've seen trestles like this get in where the railings are less prominent, because the shot was taken from further away.

The top half looks a bit overexposed. There is no detail in the clouds. Needs some highlight adjustment. That goes for the locomotives as well.

Check the very lower right-hand corner. There is some sort of artifact there. Perhaps the crop is over the edge of the image.

[Joseph Cermak]

Agree with Kevin's comments, and another item worth noting is that just because it's a rarely photographed location doesn't mean that's clear to the screeners or the average viewer. At the end of the day it looks like a relatively standard railroad trestle.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by KevinM

A few quick thoughts:

Check the very lower right-hand corner. There is some sort of artifact there. Perhaps the crop is over the edge of the image.

Kevin, I finally looked at the image on my desktop. That “artifact” is the sky reflecting in a large puddle in front of the pier. Good 👁

[ATSF666]

The clouds look a bit blown out to me.

[MassArt Images]

Resubmitted this and still got a backlit rejection and the statement that it was uncorrected from my previous submission. ��

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...96&key=6167206

[br_railphotos]

Did you leave a specific note in the “comments to screeners” section?

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Did you leave a specific note in the “comments to screeners” section?

Yes I did. I said "I corrected lighting issues"

[vcode455]

Yikes..... colors are way too much and the clouds look really strange. My 2 cents....

[ATSF666]

I'm sorry, but the second version is worse than the first. As noted previously, the clouds are worse than in the first version and the colors have gone very funky.

[KevinM]

Rut ro.......

I hate to pile on, but I have to agree that the second version definitely did not help your cause. I would put this picture aside. Further submissions might get you banned.

A couple of questions:

Can you provide some details about how you made the adjustments that produced the second version? What did you start with, what software did you use and what sort of adjustments did you make?

Also, are you actively using a histogram when making adjustments and what sort of display are you using to judge the image?

With regard to my first question, the second version of the image almost looks as if the adjustments were made to a JPEG file vs. raw. Taking an overexposed JPEG and applying significant highlights adjustments to it virtually always results in clouds that look bizarre. That's what this looks like. Always go back to the raw, bring the exposure down for starters, then apply highlights (slowly and carefully!)

With regard to my second questions, the use of a histogram would immediately tell you when you have overexposed highlights, regardless of how good or how bad your display is. If you don't have a calibrated display, consider the use of a histogram as mandatory, or you may have a lot of bad days with RP.

Generally speaking, if you don't have a really good display, you may want to try viewing the finished images on an IPAD or a decent cell phone, as long as the screen brightness has not been adjusted too much. While those are not calibrated displays, they will give you a pretty good idea of what the image looks like to most viewers and if you don't really like what you see, don't submit it. When I saw the second version this AM over breakfast, I was looking at it on an IPAD and the cloud and color issues were immediately obvious.

One last thing..... I use Lightroom for most of my editing. I am not a fan of Adobe's "for-life subscription" plan, so I purchased the last version of Lightroom I could own myself. At some point, I may move to another, 3rd party platform. I like Lightroom because I don't ever have to SAVE, therefore permanently locking in any adjustments. Lightroom allows me to make adjustments and see the results without ever altering the original raw. Once I like what I have, I can output whatever format I need, such as a JPEG for RP. If I am up late some night, working on a difficult image, I can put it down and pick up right where I left off the next morning, still with full flexibility to back out adjustments I made the night before....and with a complete record of EVERYTHING I did. With PS, you have to SAVE at bedtime, thus locking in whatever you have done so far......and with no record of your adjustments, unless you wrote everything down on paper.

[Milepost 58]

Kevin,

I just started using Lightroom around the time I started uploading here. I liked the way it resizes without losing too much quality. But for whatever reason, the version I have says it cannot edit raw photos. I've never figured it out. But I'm tiring of the monthly ding on the credit card, so I'm hoping to find something I can actually purchase instead of "rent" for the rest of my life.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Milepost 58

Kevin,

I just started using Lightroom around the time I started uploading here. I liked the way it resizes without losing too much quality. But for whatever reason, the version I have says it cannot edit raw photos. I've never figured it out. But I'm tiring of the monthly ding on the credit card, so I'm hoping to find something I can actually purchase instead of "rent" for the rest of my life.

If you are paying for the Adobe Creative Cloud and your version of Lightroom does not edit raw photos, I would contact Adobe. I would not continue to pay them until they resolve the issue. Unless you are trying to edit raw from a brand new, not-yet-supported camera model, something is wrong.

At least a couple of years ago, you could still buy Lightroom 3.6, I think as a standalone. Not sure they still offer it. That version supported my D850, but does not support my Z6. I use the Adobe DNG converter to convert the NEF files to .dng files and that works just fine in my version of Lightroom.

Don't you love it that so many corporations have now adopted the business plan invented by the mafia? "Pay us money, or bad things will happen to your photos." IMHO, it's nothing more than extortion.

[vcode455]

I run an old version of Corel. Are they still stand alone? The old version still works for me, but then I am still on Windows 7!

[br_railphotos]

Originally Posted by KevinM

One last thing..... I use Lightroom for most of my editing. I am not a fan of Adobe's "for-life subscription" plan, so I purchased the last version of Lightroom I could own myself. At some point, I may move to another, 3rd party platform. I like Lightroom because I don't ever have to SAVE, therefore permanently locking in any adjustments. Lightroom allows me to make adjustments and see the results without ever altering the original raw. Once I like what I have, I can output whatever format I need, such as a JPEG for RP. If I am up late some night, working on a difficult image, I can put it down and pick up right where I left off the next morning, still with full flexibility to back out adjustments I made the night before....and with a complete record of EVERYTHING I did. With PS, you have to SAVE at bedtime, thus locking in whatever you have done so far......and with no record of your adjustments, unless you wrote everything down on paper.

Kevin, you might look into Phase One’s software called “Capture One.” It’s actually a bit more powerful than Lightroom, and a perpetual license can still be had. I’ve considered switching myself, as I like the way it renders skin tones slightly better than LR.

Benjamin