PDA

View Full Version : Not Enough Sharpening?


quiksmith10
10-31-2004, 12:48 AM
I recently submitted both of these photos and both were rejected for not enough sharpening. I sharpened both more and submitted them again and once again they were rejected. I then tried an appeal and it was again rejected. Do you personally think they need more sharpening.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=62420

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=62417

ddavies
10-31-2004, 01:08 AM
No. You are shooting in a low light situation, with little depth of field, and with the fog, low contrast. The problem is not sharpening, maybe the screener is more of a railfan than a photographer.

If you add contrast, you loose the mood of the foggy day, but you are not going to gain depth of field by sharpening.

I would chalk it up to the fact that RP does not like moody images, but rather bright sunny days where everything is in focus.

quiksmith10
10-31-2004, 01:13 AM
Yeah I have found that out. Not to dog Railpicture.net but sunny day photos are almost always taken while a photo of a busy train yard with lots going on during a cloudy day is not accepted. It's all in there preference I guess.

Ken Carr
10-31-2004, 01:42 AM
Just my opinion and I've had my shared of rejections, I'm not excited about your first photo, but the second looks great to me you caught alot of action on a foggy day.

Chris Starnes
10-31-2004, 01:31 AM
I like the moody nature of your second shot. It would have been accepted if it wasn't blurry.

ddavies
10-31-2004, 12:00 PM
He has the front ofthe engine on the right in focus (also green leaves on the left). There is just a lack of depth of field on objects far away in the center of the frame, but that is also part of the mood. It's also foggy back there, so I wouldn't worry about lack of depth of field.

Lord Vader
10-31-2004, 03:34 PM
[quote="ddavies"]The problem is not sharpening, maybe the screener is more of a railfan than a photographer.

Maybe Mr. Davies does not realize that we have a pulldown menu of standard rejection reasons and the specific reject reason in order for that photo was not one of them.

Also, since you are not a contributor to this site, why do you feel compelled to critique the screeners when you clearly do not know who they are and what backgrounds they have?

quiksmith10
10-31-2004, 05:10 PM
Thank you all for your comments. MikeF, come to think of it now that you mention low shutter speed, that was one of the photos I took yesterday that I had on the wrong setting. The setting dial on my camera somehow got turned form a high shutter speed for fast moving objects to a low shutter speed for night time objects. The photo would have then been more clear if the high shutter speed was on. I guess I will pay more attention to my dial next time.

rpalmer
10-31-2004, 07:38 PM
No. You are shooting in a low light situation, with little depth of field, and with the fog, low contrast. The problem is not sharpening, maybe the screener is more of a railfan than a photographer.

If you add contrast, you loose the mood of the foggy day, but you are not going to gain depth of field by sharpening.

I would chalk it up to the fact that RP does not like moody images, but rather bright sunny days where everything is in focus.

If this were an unusual subject, you might have had a better chance of getting these accepted. However, this site sure isn't lacking for photos of NS GE widecabs. If I were a screener, I would have used "Cloudy shot of common power" as the reason for rejection.
The scene you depicted ( or something very similar) probably happens every day at Enola. Go back and shoot it on a sunny day late in the afternoon with good lighting. If you really want the "mood" associated with a fog shot, then you need to understand that you have a higher probability of a rejection of you choose to submit it here.

ddavies
11-02-2004, 02:09 PM
To CXSCTCweb

Screeners shouldn't hide behind screen names :(

I have no idea how you guys screen, I was never invited, but I joined about a week after RP was formed, and at one time had the most visits per picture average on all of RP, when I had my pictures pulled because I deceided the resolution was more than I wanted to have on the web for free as a professional photographer (shooting with a D1 with 2000 pixels meant a 1024 image was 1/4 of my raw file!!!).

It seems that most of the screeners are railfans first and photographers second.

I have tried to help as a pro, but if you guys would rather me not because I currently don't have anything in the database, fine with me.

Lord Vader
11-02-2004, 02:32 PM
The material on your website certainly does not reflect that your a professional photographer. Interesting that you would accuse us of not knowing what we are doing.

ddavies
11-02-2004, 03:02 PM
No, that is news, I am not selling my work right now.

Just for you, I have updated my webpage. There are lots of flavors of professional photographers.

http://members.cox.net/dbdavies/

Check out Forensic Files (Court TV) show "Cloak of Deceit" :wink:

Ween
11-02-2004, 10:20 PM
I have tried to help as a pro, but if you guys would rather me not because I currently don't have anything in the database, fine with me.

They probably don't want your help because you come off as an arrogant a-hole know-it-all, not because you have nothing in the database.

But that's just my opinion...

ddavies
11-03-2004, 11:18 AM
Sorry, I was just trying to help the overall quality of railfan pics.

I'm out of here.

blueangel-eric
11-04-2004, 06:11 PM
This is my second reject photo. This one is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo Submission Results:

Photo ID 63666 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Burlington Northern Railroad
Locomotive: EMD SD40-2
Reason for Rejection: Undersharpened (soft)
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63666
Appeal Rejection: http://www.railpictures.net/members/appeal.php?id=63666

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a great photo. I had difficulties over the years with my point n shoot zoom camera i used to use when i didn't have the money for anything else. now i have a Cannon Eos Rebel G SLR. My now defunct point n shoot took to slow a shutter speed to get crisp photos without motion blur. I am very selective on what i put into the computer and i don't have much to work with of my older stuff as many wasn't very good quality.

As with this photo i use sharpen but at the lightest sharpening so i don't make it grainy. i could try it again at a different level of sharpening. but then i would have have to redo my others as well if that's the case. all those hours of work for nothing.
eric

Joe
11-04-2004, 09:05 PM
I think this shot is very nice, too. But unfortunately the front of the locomotive is blurry, which can be seen easily in the numberboards. I think it is good enough to get past a little tiny bit of blur... :)

cmherndon
11-04-2004, 09:56 PM
It really doesn't look like much can be done about the photo. The front of the locomotive is too much out of focus to be helped with photoshop. Usually, an image can only be sharpened twice in photoshop before it starts to pixelate.

blueangel-eric
11-05-2004, 08:40 PM
I noticed other pictures in the database the are soft as well but why are they accepted? I even saw a CR sd80mac with the colors so out of wack it looked like it came out of a 30 year old camera with expired film or something. I know we need quality control, but this quality control is like a tight noose. I hesitate on wether i should even bother with my pics. it's like the Trains magazine they are biased against pics of the midwest and favor the "mountains" or "cajon pass" or tehachipi loop and horse curve etc pictures. I had a BNSF 8280 sd70I picture in the dark that was great, back when noone in emporia even knew they excisted and my RR contact on that train said its the FIRST run of this loco but Trains held the pic for 3 months then published a set of 3 SD70I's on Cajon Pass. I'm not saying this web site is that biased but no slack for those who don't have all that expensive equipment. If they want that good of quality then they can buy me some better equipment and a vacation to shoot some good stuff. but unfortunately only my newer stuff is better and my older stuff including the Santa Fe picts were on my old point n shoot zoom camera. too late for a good camera. anyways soapbox off. just wanted to point out my observations.

blueangel-eric
11-05-2004, 11:02 PM
more troubles:

Photo Submission Results:

Photo ID 63882 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (ATSF)
Locomotive: GP60M
Reason for Rejection: Subject too far away
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63882
Appeal Rejection: http://www.railpictures.net/members/appeal.php?id=63882

Photo ID 63884 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (ATSF)
Locomotive: GP60M
Reason for Rejection: Blurry
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63884
Appeal Rejection: http://www.railpictures.net/members/appeal.php?id=63884


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo Submission Results:

Photo ID 63891 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Locomotive: EMD GP40X
Reason for Rejection: Too much color saturation
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63891
Appeal Rejection: http://www.railpictures.net/members/appeal.php?id=63891

Photo ID 63896 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Locomotive: EMD GP9
Reason for Rejection: Bad angle
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63896
Appeal Rejection: http://www.railpictures.net/members/appeal.php?id=63896

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


and then i sent the same one again only without touchups to the sky and a different excuse:
:x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo Submission Results:

Photo ID 63897 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Locomotive: EMD GP40X
Reason for Rejection: Bad cropping
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63897
Appeal Rejection: http://www.railpictures.net/members/appeal.php?id=63897

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I spent several hours on these and others that i haven't posted yet. Looks like i need to find a different provider. thanks for any help offered.
My time is too precious to waste here.

ps my train site is www.trainweb.org/railnet

Ween
11-05-2004, 11:07 PM
I'm not saying this web site is that biased but no slack for those who don't have all that expensive equipment. If they want that good of quality then they can buy me some better equipment and a vacation to shoot some good stuff.

Where to start? First off, this site has alot of slack for those of us with less expensive equipment. If you don't believe it, look at every single one of my photos accepted on this site. They were all taken on a Nikon CoolPix 2100, probably the least expensive Nikon PnS out there. In no way do they stand up to the quality, clarity, and overall pleasent viewing experience like the photos of Ken Carr, Moe Bertrand, E.M. Bell, James Matuska, etc., etc., etc., but they're in the database right next to those guys'. The owners of this site could make it 'professional' only if they want, afterall, it's their site, but they don't. But they do want you to get the best out of yourself and your equipment, and if you don't, don't be surprised to find your stuff in the rejected bin. And that goes for those who have the top-of-the-line Digital SLRs as well.

I don't think location has anything to do with whether your shot is accepted or rejected. Most of my shots are from the plains of Illinois, and it just doesn't get anymore boring than that. Personally, I don't like photos from Cajon simply because I do not like the desert. It's the quality of shot that matters, not the location.

And, like has been said numerous times on this forum already, if your sole purpose is to get your photos accepted on this site, you are missing the point. The screeners are under no obligation to accept your photos just because you went out with the purpose of getting them accepted here, and they are certainly under no obligation to get you better equipment and a vacation. That's just ridiculous and makes you look like a fool.

Focus more on improving your skills rather than complaining about the way things are done around here and you'll be better off in the end...

blueangel-eric
11-05-2004, 11:09 PM
does anyone agree with me on how blurry this one is?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2238

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2240

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2241

this one is worse: dust in the photo
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=14266

I'll stop here. Just wanted to prove a point.

Ween
11-05-2004, 11:44 PM
God gave us life, Christ gave us eternity!! God Bless You!!

Your behavior (pointing out flaws in other people's photos and proving points) is certainly not Christ-like. Just something to think about...

quiksmith10
11-05-2004, 11:55 PM
He just wanted to prove a point. Some of those photos he just pointed out are indeed blurry and shouldn't have been accepted. The only reason why they were excepted was because they were of something "rare" and interesting. They should have been sharpened but there is nothing that can be done of that now.

Oh yeah, and another thing, don't even begin to bring Christ into this. Ween, what you said was wrong and definately unchrist-like.

Guilford350
11-06-2004, 12:17 AM
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63882 - I agree. Not only is it too far away but also very grainy.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63884 - Also grainy. Good composition, though.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63891 - The sky was too saturated. You fixed it here, http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63897 , but there's too much nose room. Crop about inch off on the right.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63896 - I understand this is rare power but the sky in the background near the buildings is pixelated and saturated.

The other photos you slated for being too blurry are of new and rare power. That SD80MAC appears to be less than a month old. I am surprised the photo with the dust got accepted. I guess the power and good lighting made up for it.

blueangel-eric
11-06-2004, 12:31 AM
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63882 - I agree. Not only is it too far away but also very grainy.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63884 - Also grainy. Good composition, though.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63891 - The sky was too saturated. You fixed it here, http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63897 , but there's too much nose room. Crop about inch off on the right.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63896 - I understand this is rare power but the sky in the background near the buildings is pixelated and saturated.

The other photos you slated for being too blurry are of new and rare power. That SD80MAC appears to be less than a month old. I am surprised the photo with the dust got accepted. I guess the power and good lighting made up for it.

These all came from 4x6 prints. I have stuff on slides which can't be scanned and all the rest are prints what can i do? does that mean my whole collection of prints from 1994 till now are all bad then because of the graininess? I did experiment with Fuji and poloriod before but most my shots are on kodak film usually 100 speed or 200 I also have a priceless vacation and i got cheap and shot with scotch and my only great vacation pics of 1997 of conrail and csx etc are even more grainy so if the others are bad what about these :( I should have stuck with slides but then how do you put those into the PC? thanks for input

Chris Starnes
11-06-2004, 04:13 AM
does anyone agree with me on how blurry this one is?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2238

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2240

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2241

this one is worse: dust in the photo
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=14266


If you will notice these photos were added to the database over a year and a half ago. Standards have increased a great bit since then.

If your sole purpose is to go through the database to find shots that make you feel like your recent uploads should have been accepted, you are wasting your time. Doing this doesn't improve the quality of your shots.....

There are plenty of other "accept-anything" websites out there that would be glad to host your images for you since you are so upset with your treatment here.

cmherndon
11-06-2004, 05:44 AM
Reason for Rejection: Subject too far away
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63882
Definitely too far away and grainy at that. Where is the train in this shot?
Reason for Rejection: Blurry
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63884
Definitely blurry. I can't even make out what it says on the nose of the locomotive. The Crown Vic doesn't help the shot much either.
Reason for Rejection: Too much color saturation
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63891

Reason for Rejection: Bad angle
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=63896
OK, the colors in these two are just....off. That's all that can be said. Plus, going away shots are usually not accepted unless it's relatively scenic.
First off, this site has alot of slack for those of us with less expensive equipment. If you don't believe it, look at every single one of my photos accepted on this site. They were all taken on a Nikon CoolPix 2100, probably the least expensive Nikon PnS out there.
Amen, brother! I too use a P&S digital, and now have 450 photos on the site. I used to get pissed about rejections but that doesn't do any good. When you get a photo rejected, you need to use that as a learning tool and not come and whine about it on the forums. Trust me it works.