PDA

View Full Version : Photo of the Week - Rejected :o)


nickhp
10-20-2004, 05:11 AM
Sorry guys, but the photo of the week this week (http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=81376) will have to be removed. The photo has now been rejected :lol:


Thank you for your submission to railpictures.net. Your photo has been rejected for the following reason(s):

1. FOREGROUND CLUTTER. There is a large object floating in the river in front of the train which detracts from the train.

2. BAD MOTIVE/CROPPING. The train is barely visible in the photo. The photo should be cropped tighter to remove the "wasted" space.

3. BAD ANGLE. The horizon in the picture is not level. The picture should be rotated to the right to correct this.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

cmherndon
10-20-2004, 06:01 AM
Somehow, I fail to see any humor in that. :roll:

Guilford350
10-20-2004, 09:15 PM
Wow, nickhp, what's your problem? Do you have something against the photographer?

I think its a real fine photo.

E.M. Bell
10-20-2004, 10:42 PM
personaly I find that to be one of the more creative images I have seen on here in the past few months...nice angle, perfect light...the only thing that would make it better would be a good ol F40 on the point of the train instead of that GE...

nickhp
10-20-2004, 11:02 PM
Do I have something against the photographer? No, I don't even know who the photographer is. This isn't about the photographer anyway.

Sorry you guys missed the point of the post. I guess I'll have to spell it out for your benefit.

The photo of the week is the picture selected as the best of the pictures submitted in the past week. Now go and look at some of the pictures rejected recently (before they get deleted, which is why I can't link to them). I chose 3 reasons from those listed in this very forum to use for my attempt at "screening". I used those recent rejected photo's posted to this forum and tried to be consistent with those rejections.

The photo of the week includes a very large, non railroad oriented, object in front of the train. I have seen pictures rejected for far less foreground clutter/distraction than this. Second, bad motive/cropping. The train is very small in the picture - a lot of the picture could be cropped out, making for a tighter shot - pictures rejected and discussed here have had the train filling more than 40% of the frame, yet in this case the train probably fills less than 5% of the total picture area. Finally, the picture is slanted to the left.

Do I care about any of the above? No. I am not interested in the subject matter so wouldn't have taken a second look at this picture anyway. BUT, my point is that this photo, the best of the week, COULD have been rejected for 3 different reasons if consistent screening was applied. Yet, this photo was not only accepted but was made the best of the week.

The point - even a technically imperfect shot (on 3 counts) can not only be accepted, but can also be selected as photo of the week. Yet other shots can fail on just one count and be rejected from the database altogether. It could now be argued that this photo has artistic merit, that the surrounding objects/cropping MAKE the picture etc., but if that can be said for this picture, then why not for others?

Have I overstepped the mark with this post? Have I maybe touched on too sensitive a subject? I'll take the numerous e-mails I have already received about this thread to the effect of "well said" as an indiciation that maybe people are tired of the inconsistency here. I know I am and have voiced this already, in a less pointed way. Maybe this was meant as a more direct hint being that the photo being critiqued is the POTW.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. I have over 450 photos that I have edited and prepared for posting here that are sitting in a folder on my hard drive. Why have I not posted them? Because I am not going to waste my time, at 2 minutes average per picture, just to have them screened so inconsistently. I am not the only one. I have made many friends through this site, and many of them no longer post here for the very reason I am talking about. Some of those people are still towards the top of the list of number of photos submitted. Take a look up there, say in the top 30 submitters. Look at the number of those photogrpahers that have not posted in the past 3 months, the past 6 months or longer. The early "backbone" members, it seems, are talking by their actions.

Good day!

slackaction
10-20-2004, 11:11 PM
Sounds like a bad case of jealousy to me. If any of those photos that you have ready to post are of the quality of the POTW you should post them, if not, you should really consider what and how you say things in a public forum, as it really makes you seem like a ass with a jealousy problem.

I only wish I had the talent to take a shot like that!!!

Chris Kilroy
10-20-2004, 11:23 PM
Nick,

You are a fine photographer, and have some great images in the database. I do feel, however, that your criticism is a bit unfounded.

Foreground objects are fine when they add to a photo. A classic example is the first shot I come across when I search your name:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=75317

To me, without the foreground objects, that is a hell of a boring photo. Those objects make it. Same with the barge, same with a lot of things.

There's a big difference between intentionally framing a train with a foreground object, and having it obscured with something like a fence, power poles, etc.

nickhp
10-20-2004, 11:38 PM
Chris,

Thanks for the comment, however unfounded...

The photo of mine that you linked to is a perfect example of the kind of crap that is accepted here while other pictures are rejected even though the foreground clutter is much less noticeable.

There is no rule against this, so I'll come clean - my motive for the handful of recent postings was strictly to show the pictures to someone interested in buying prints. I can't imagine why they would want a photo shot from this location, but they pay their money, they get their print. I thought I'd have to use my personal web space to post this picture because of the location. Now that the deal is done, this photo is something worth deleting from the database as there is no way it should have been accepted.

Cheers

Nick

E.M. Bell
10-20-2004, 11:40 PM
IF your picture was crap as you said..why did you even upload it??

Silagi
10-21-2004, 12:41 AM
Nick,

So Railpictures is providing free of charge a place for you to display your photos so that you can sell them and make money and you want to complain?

Instead of thinking railpictures as a bank to store all of your photos, think of it more as a pictorial magazine. Magazines have editors. On railpictures, the screeners are the editors. The screeners are looking for photos that fit the format of what we wish to display on this site. Just because a photo is rejected, does not mean it is a bad photo. It only means that it is not the type of photo the railpictures is looking for to publish on the site. As for your 450 images waiting to be uploaded, why don't the go through those images and pick out maybe 25 of the very best shots and upload those.

JButler
10-21-2004, 02:06 AM
Screeners and site owner,
At the risk of cutting off my nose to spite my face, I have to say that I understand the point Nick is trying to make, even if Iím not sure I agree with his tactic.

There are cases where the artistic intent, or taste, of the photographer is disregarded for no other reason than a screener doesnít like the way a photo is cropped, lighted or framed. It seems to many folks who submit here, that a photo can be technically good, but not what a screener is in the mood for at the time and therefore, get rejected.

Discounting photos rejected for obvious technical issues, such as the ones I submit with the edge of the print showing in the scan, perhaps there needs to be a probation period for photos rejected then appealed. If a photographer appeals a rejected photo that is in focus, scanned okay, not ridiculously dark or upside-down, add it to the database for three days and let the view count show if it is worthy or not. If no one looks at it, the screeners were correct, remove it from the database. If it gets hits, maybe the photographer was on to something, let it stay!
Iím not sure how much extra work this would be or what technical issues it would involve, (removing photos from the database is done on a regular bases, it must not be too hard) but it would have to be less time consuming than dealing with the constant complaints over photos rejected for other than obvious technical problems.

I am not forgetting that this is a privately owned site, or that the site owner can run it any way he wants. However, I am thinking that the site owner is reasonable and realizes that common railfans with cameras are what has made the site the success it is. The probation period is a compromise that could solve most rejection issues.

Just an idea.

Ween
10-21-2004, 04:18 AM
When I first read the post, I thought I got what nick was trying to communicate; I thought he was just poking fun at some of the more common rejection reasons and applying it to an obviously good photo. I figured he wasn't serious as the POTW is a superb shot, and if you look at the bottom of his post, he had all those laughing smiley faces, which are used to indicate 'humor.'

I thought some of the replies from other members here just didn't see the 'humor' in his post and thought he was being malicious.

But his responses later in this thread have caused me to back away from any type of support or defense. It's obvious he has an agenda, and his actions were out of line.

nick, I find it ironic too that you use this site for profit and then complain about the way things are run around here. There are other railroad picture archive sites out there that don't have a screening process. If you don't like other people 'judging' your photos, post them elsewhere, and leave your whining to other messageboards...

nickhp
10-21-2004, 11:32 AM
Richard: Whatever it is that I get out of rp is of no consequence to anyone else, is it? The bottom line is that you get pictures for your site which is what the site is about, right? And to be fair, look at the list of my pictures and the dates they were posted - since I gave up posting last year, I have added 8 photo's - hardly like I am "dumping" lots of pictures and wasting your storage space!

Ween: Please read the above statement to Richard! And since when have I ever complained about people criticizing my work? My comments on the POTW were meant to show that if applied consistently, screening could have resulted in this photo being rejected for 3 different reasons. It is no reflection on the photo itself, but proves a point - a photo can be accepted even if technically flawed, for "artistic" value, depending on the screeners taste.

I personally don't get too many pictures rejected - but those that are annoy me because the excuse for rejection was often so absurd. Stuff like "photo too dark" for a night shot which was better exposed than a lot of my other night pictures already on the site etc. Those 450+ pictures on my hard drive - they are not hoards of pictures taken in the last month, they are shots taken over several years. Sure I could post 25 that I like the best, but those other shots are not variations of the same shot.

Finally, yes I do have an agenda, but it is not for my gain. Rather, I am concerned that railpictures is losing a lot of very good photographers, not because they get pictures rejected and don't like it, but because the rejection criteria seems to change from picture to picture and they get frustrated wasting their time. My observation still stands - look how many people in the top 30 contributions are now no longer posting or posting maybe 1 or 2 pictures a month. And look at those newer contributors to rp - they are using the rejection criteria to try and better their photography yet they are basing this on comments which are inconsistent, which frustrates them to the point of giving up because no matter what they do their pictures are never good enough.

Suggestion: if screeners are rejecting a photo, be honest about why you are doing so. People are basing their photographic improvement on it. So rather than using an off-the-shelf excuse like "poor cropping" or "foreground clutter", be honest and say that the picture is technically acceptable but that it is not artistically in line with the railpictures site theme. Don't leave the photographer thinking his/her photographic skills are off when it comes down to you not liking their particular artistic style even if the photographic side is technically good. Screeners have the responsibility of filtering photos submitted while providing LEGITIMATE reasons for rejections so people understand what was wrong with a shot. If all that is wrong with a shot is that you don't like it personally from an artistic standpoint, say that and be honest about it. People are much less likely to complain about that then they are about you rejecting it with some other technical reason that they can prove to you is wrong/inconsistent.

TTFN

Ween
10-21-2004, 07:13 PM
Finally, yes I do have an agenda, but it is not for my gain.

There is no rule against this, so I'll come clean - my motive for the handful of recent postings was strictly to show the pictures to someone interested in buying prints.

Hmmmmm...

But anyway, perhaps there are other reasons that the top contributors are not posting anymore. Things like, moving, gas price, other expenses might be keeping them from getting out. To make a blanket claim that it is inconsistent screening that drives them away is absurd.

And as far as the newer RP contributors, I put myself in that group. If someone gives up after having one or two rejections, that's their problem; not the screener's. There are numerous outlets to learn from and get advice from on this site alone. This message board is one. The appeals process is another, and before you go on about the appeals process being a joke, it works. There's a place where you can explain your viewpoint in regards to the photo and why you think it should be accepted. I've had numerous shots accepted on appeal after I had a chance to explain from my standpoint. E-mail or instant messaging is another outlet. I've found the screeners are nice and willing to provide advice when asked politely.

And as far as this:

Screeners have the responsibility of filtering photos submitted while providing LEGITIMATE reasons for rejections so people understand what was wrong with a shot.

This would be a true statement is you were the owner and they were your 'employees,' but they're not. And since there's nothing you can do to change this fact, whining on here isn't going to change anything.

I am concerned that railpictures is losing a lot of very good photographers, not because they get pictures rejected and don't like it, but because the rejection criteria seems to change from picture to picture and they get frustrated wasting their time.

If your sole purpose in this hobby is to get your shots accepted here, photographers are missing the point. The hobby is about getting out of the house, seeing what you can catch, and preserving a little bit of history. You've heard the saying, "A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work." Same thing here. Enjoy the fact you can get out and maybe learn something or see something you've never seen before, not worry about whether or not your stuff will get accepted here...

cmherndon
10-21-2004, 09:57 PM
I personally don't get too many pictures rejected - but those that are annoy me because the excuse for rejection was often so absurd.

I don't get too many rejected either, but when I do, I don't come onto the RP Forums or a Yahoo Group and whine about it.

Stuff like "photo too dark" for a night shot which was better exposed than a lot of my other night pictures already on the site etc.

Ambient lighting usually helps in a night shot.

So rather than using an off-the-shelf excuse like "poor cropping" or "foreground clutter", be honest and say that the picture is technically acceptable but that it is not artistically in line with the railpictures site theme.

A pile of rocks, junk, trash, etc. in front of a train just doesn't cut it. There is a fine line between art and crap.

Don't leave the photographer thinking his/her photographic skills are off when it comes down to you not liking their particular artistic style even if the photographic side is technically good.

Most of us sensible photographers use rejections as a way to make our photography better.

Screeners have the responsibility of filtering photos submitted while providing LEGITIMATE reasons for rejections so people understand what was wrong with a shot.

So too dark, out of focus, bad contrast, grainy, bad cropping, etc. are not legit rejection reasons? If "Pure Crap" was added as a rejection reason, would that get the point across?

If all that is wrong with a shot is that you don't like it personally from an artistic standpoint, say that and be honest about it.

I think that's where "Bad Motive" comes into play.

People are much less likely to complain about that then they are about you rejecting it with some other technical reason that they can prove to you is wrong/inconsistent.

I highly doubt that. As long as there are egotistical photographers who get shots rejected, there will always be whining and complaining.