What seems to be the problem

The clip below, and all clips with the same title, where rejected from all sites; Except for P5 of course, because only P5 knows that only customers understand the needs of customers. The reason for rejection was always overexposure/ poor exposure. True, the scene was difficult to shoot. I had to shoot against the sun, which resulted in silhouetted subjects. I could not shoot from another spot and all of my helicopters that were dedicated to extreme photography were in the garage, since they had to be washed for July 4th. (;-).

My questions:
1. Is the bakgound overexposed? (I think it's over focused, but this problem was not raised);
2. Do you see any problem that I could not see on my computer?
3. What would you do to remedy the "problem" and make the clip more acceptable?

I guess the background is a little over exposed but if it wasn't the person would be totally black.
I don't know what could be done other maybe some white balance or a little contrast increase.

I think sites should be a little more forgiving on clips if it is something that wasn't easy to capture or out of the ordinary like this.
Jake

To me it looks like the lens is on auto exposure and darkening by 2 or 3 stops from the start to the finish of the tilt. . . as that what they took offense at?

That might also be the sun coming across the scene... I've had them rejected for that which is slightly frustrating. If the video is a good subject matter, which this one is, then let it pass :-)

Just another reason for not wasting my time on other agencies. The fact of the matter is, if one caters to the pro world (i.e. TV networks, production co's, studios) then this is really not an issue as they will do much work to the footage anyway. If I were to use this piece for example, I would most likely key out the background while leaving the cliff and person anyway and perhaps put something more dramatic there. Understanding all the things that can be done (and quite easily) a clip of this sort would work very well. I have found that in most cases (speaking of pro purchases) they want the stuff as raw and original as possible. Sure one can nitpick stuff to death... but what for? Why even bother? My philosophy is just "Shut up and shoot". Opinions about things are a dime a dozen. Reality is, it doesn't matter. It is subjective as hell. I would buy this clip as said without worrying about the background, as I would remove it anyway and only use the first few seconds. (perhaps put a time-lapse moon rising instead or something cool like that.)

I see the change in exposure as well, and as birkley says, auto iris seems to be on,..

Im not experienced enough to provide a remedy, but from my reading research my guess is this would be an excellent condition to use some kind of graduated filter or neutral density filter to even out the contrasts, perhpas someone with more experience can confirm or deny that.

It's not a technical problem, it's a compositional one. The background is bright and sharp, the subject is in shadow. The background makes up about 95% of the frame, the subject about 5%. To fix this after the fact might be possible, but it would be a real stretch, and not worth the trouble given the content. You need to find a way to shoot the climber from a different angle/location, at a different time of day when the sun can hit her or you can at least throw her into silhouette, and preferably with a longer lens or from a little closer.

Well, there was no way to change the shooting location/angel/hour.
I am not aware of filters that change the contrast.
As vader said, I'd rather leave the work raw.

Funny, on my camera and on my computer monitor, it does not look overexposed!

I really don't think there's any exposure issue, just composition. Some shots work and some don't. If you can't go back and shoot again from a different spot or at a different time of day then just move on. No big whoop...