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)
-   -   Color (Hue): The hue (color cast) of the photo is poor (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17262)

scarbo 10-19-2014 05:55 PM

Color (Hue): The hue (color cast) of the photo is poor
 
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 10-20-2014 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarbo (Post 181897)
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 10-20-2014 02:15 AM

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

Dennis A. Livesey 10-20-2014 02:26 AM

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

jac_murphy 10-20-2014 03:21 AM

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 10-20-2014 04:24 AM

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

MagnumForce 10-20-2014 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181912)
Matt, do you have a frame before the pole was growing out of the cab?

He says it was stopped in the caption.

JimThias 10-20-2014 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce (Post 181919)
He says it was stopped in the caption.

You sure about that?

Quote:

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 10-20-2014 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181912)
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 10-20-2014 04:10 PM

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

scarbo 10-21-2014 12:52 PM

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 10-22-2014 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarbo (Post 181934)
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:

http://digital-photography-school.co...2/10/ideal.png

miningcamper1 10-22-2014 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181956)

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 10-22-2014 12:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 181961)
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:

Attachment 8757

bigbassloyd 10-22-2014 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181962)
No reason to criticize..

It appears to be his forte.

Loyd L.

miningcamper1 10-22-2014 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 181963)
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 10-22-2014 02:33 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181962)
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 10-22-2014 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 181966)
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 10-22-2014 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 181968)
website we so love. :)

Loyd L.

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

JimThias 10-23-2014 01:29 AM

1 Attachment(s)
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. :lol:

Attachment 8762

miningcamper1 10-23-2014 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181975)
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. :lol:

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 10-23-2014 09:51 AM

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

bigbassloyd 10-23-2014 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce (Post 181978)
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 10-23-2014 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 181976)
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 10-24-2014 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 181985)
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.

JRMDC 10-25-2014 12:00 AM

Mining, there is an intermediate point between field and finished product, no? :)

I would recommend that anyone who cares about their processing learn to use a histogram, it is an invaluable tool. It goes to the essence of tonality. But I won't be offended by the many who don't take my advice. :)

JimThias 10-27-2014 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 182021)
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.

Right. I reference the histogram in the field all the time (never in processing), especially when it's bright outside and I can't get a good idea of how the exposure looks on the screen after a test shot (I keep the screen dim, by the way). You know, I want to "get it right" in camera like so many other perfectionists. Yeah, I chimp, and I don't care what others think about that either. :-P It's the end product that matters to me, not the methods involved to achieve it.

KevinM 10-27-2014 03:56 PM

I use the histogram all the time.....in the field and in processing. As Jim noted, you can't always tell if the exposure is right by using the LCD monitor, but the histogram will definitely help you achieve the most ideal settings for a shot.

In processing, the histogram will also help you adjust to ensure that you don't have too much pure black or pure white. People may look at a photo and say: "This is or that is blown out", but the histogram will tell you for sure. You can also see what is truly recoverable in raw and what is a lost cause.

Although the bell-curve image in Jim's post is the theoretical picture of the "ideal histogram", reality is that the only ideal is the ideal for each unique image. How the histogram will look depends upon the type of elements in the scene, how they are arranged/composed, and the lighting on each. Looking at the camera's histogram for a scene you intend to shoot, and taking some test shots, will help you zero in on the "ideal" for that particular scene. In my mind, this is what separates digital photography from film photography: Instant results and a good, technical means to judge the most appropriate exposure. That means is the histogram.

miningcamper1 10-27-2014 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 182053)
...what separates digital photography from film photography: Instant results and a good, technical means to judge the most appropriate exposure. That means is the histogram.

We slide shooters weren't clueless about getting it right in the camera- it was imperative. We had spot meters, gray cards, "expose for the highlights", etc. And the pros had Polaroids for those test shots.

JimThias 10-27-2014 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 182054)
We slide shooters weren't clueless about getting it right in the camera- it was imperative. We had spot meters, gray cards, "expose for the highlights", etc. And the pros had Polaroids for those test shots.

I can relate with the old school mentality. Every time I see someone driving a car with an automatic transmission, I just shake my head. Advances in technology make it too easy for people these days.

:D

bigbassloyd 10-27-2014 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 182056)
I can relate with the old school mentality. Every time I see someone driving a car with an automatic transmission, I just shake my head. Advances in technology make it too easy for people these days.

:D

If and when you require medical assistance in the future, make sure you ask for the old school method(s).. :D

Loyd L.

Dennis A. Livesey 10-28-2014 02:09 AM

And all I did was say "histogram." :-)

Dennis A. Livesey 10-28-2014 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 182053)
I use the histogram all the time.....in the field and in processing. ...
.Instant results and a good, technical means to judge the most appropriate exposure. That means is the histogram.

Kevin, this is what I do well. I must admit I mostly go with the meter when the action is hot but when I have a set up, I check the histogram. In processing, it's the first thing I set.

I used light meters for decades; I have four. The last one cost over $700 in 1999 and I tried and tried to learn how to use it skillfully. Never, ever was I totally comfortable with it. Going digital and seeing the instant results finally opened my eyes to what exposure is.

For me, using film plus meter vs. using a digital camera is like the difference between walking in a cave and walking on a sunny beach.

lalam 11-04-2014 03:19 AM

Suggestions please......http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...76&key=5155754

bigbassloyd 11-04-2014 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lalam (Post 182118)

The photo is overly saturated. The bigger issue would be the very poor image quality throughout the scene. I would pass on this one.

Loyd L.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.