PDA

View Full Version : Picture rejected bad cropping II, why?


Ken Carr
10-29-2004, 11:05 PM
During this past week I have been attempting to submit photograhs of a UP business train tied up in Las Vegas during the evening of the 26th. Each photo was rejected. The latest submital was rejected for bad cropping taking in to consideration RP's 800x600 or 1024 x 760 rule what if any would be your suggestions?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=62094

ddavies
10-29-2004, 11:39 PM
Apply the rule of thirds for photo composition.

This shot has the object in the middle of the image ... Bad.

Crop off all the weeds at the bottom and some blank area at the rear of the train to meet the rule of thirds.

The exposure is actually too light. Do an auto levels in photoshop, and then I darkened it up some more. Selected the nose of the engine and brightened it up just a bit.

It is a moody type shot, and the gons in front of the unit hurt, no clue if the screeners will like it or not.[/url]

Lord Vader
10-30-2004, 05:35 AM
That is very borderline on a "closer to 1024x768" rejection. I'm not sure if I screened that one or not, as it does not look familiar. However, I'm usually the jerk about image sizes. The goal in keeping images reasonably close to 1024x768 or 800x600 (give or take a reasonable amount of pixels) is to have a continuity of image size throughout the site.

dns860
11-15-2004, 02:45 AM
oops

dns860
11-15-2004, 02:46 AM
I'm no expert, but I thought you might find it helpful to know that in Photoshop 7 you can save specifically sized crop tools, so no matter where you draw your box your crop will measure exactly 1024x768, 800x600, or any other size you wish, for that matter!

Pre-setting and saving crop tool settings is simple and it saves me a lot of time. But all is not perfect in Camera Town. I still get rejections for bad cropping. I think it's because of where I choose to crop now, rather than because my images are just plain improperly sized. That, or the screeners don't like me. That could be. I mean, that's how life has always been for me. People always give me a hard road to go. That's why I'm a loner, a rebel, the guy they never give a break, the guy they always follow until he's well out of town. Yup! It sure isn't easy being me!

But I disgress. Learning about cropping through rejections made clear to me one of my camera's more pronounced limitations. Unacceptable blurriness occurs when I even slightly crop images taken at 4x optical zoom. I have a 4 MP Minolta DiMAGE S-414. And to think I believed that darn Target salesman when he told me it was better than a Canon EOS 300D and industry insiders considered it a darkhorse challenger to the Nikon D70 too. Since it was only $89.00, how could I say no? (Just kidding about the Target salesman. But it was *$270* off MSRP, and it had much coveted full manual controls.)

Now evidently I am a outgrowing my Minolta. Today I was shopping around on the 'Net for something new! I mean, I can't have blurry images. I tried the 'Special or Otherwise Celebratory'" trick. The screeners can't be counted on to go for the old "artistic photo" ruse more than once or twice. Yup. You think you got probems? This whole cropping and zooming thing is a real problem for me. See, in New York City a strong zoom lens is like a must, what with all the bridges and fences and snarling attack dogs and stuff! It's not like I'm sitting on the porch of the Izaak Walton Inn or picnicking in Rochelle Railfan Park or something. I radical foreground obstructions as a way of life, man! A Minolta with 4x optical zoom does me little good, if it's gonna give me blurry images! I need performance! I'm telling you! One afternoon in The Bronx, and the tough guys tumble!

Today I looked at the new $280 Canon Powershot S1 IS (The reviewers say its images are too soft) and the $320 Panasonic DMC-FZ10 with its Leica lens (Highly Recommended). Both cameras have image stablization and 12x optical zoom capability.

But I believe I disgress, again!

David Sommer