PDA

View Full Version : Screening Consistency


iCe
08-30-2003, 03:31 AM
I don't agree with what the other user stated about not having screeners. I think screening is important, it keeps the site at a good standard and quality. However, I think screening has to be consistent, look at these examples from my last upload.

http://railpictures.net/images/v/VIA_L915b.jpg.21685
This was rejected because "Part of subject is missing". And it isn't on this one?
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d/DSCF0017.JPG.19294

http://railpictures.net/images/v/VIA_T.jpg.33526
Reason? "Bad motive"...but isn't this the Canadian version of this:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/p/padheath3.JPG.29496

http://railpictures.net/images/o/Ottawa_Stationa.jpg.93168
The entrance to the Ottawa VIA Station is a "bad motive", but the entrance to Mobile Amtrak Station isn't?
http://www.railpictures.net/images/s/sunsfinal.jpg.80832


http://railpictures.net/images/p/Platforms.jpg.34076
Ottawa Station platforms are a "bad motive", but Waterloo Station platforms are ok?
http://www.railpictures.net/images/p/p373003.JPG.36777

http://railpictures.net/images/v/VIA_L906.jpg.95701
"Foreground Clutter" is unacceptable for VIA P42DS, but alright ok for British Rail Class 322?
http://www.railpictures.net/images/p/padheath2.JPG.12692

http://railpictures.net/images/t/Ticket_Office.jpg.12165
The interior of Ottawa Station is a "bad motive" but Montreal is ok?
http://www.railpictures.net/images/a/amt-lucien-lallier-1.jpg.59777

To the photographers of those example photos: don't get me wrong, I have nothing against your shots. As a matter of fact, I think they are great. Neither am I saying my photos are all just as good as yours. All I'm asking is consistency in the screening process.

mojo628
08-30-2003, 03:54 AM
Inquiring minds want to know.

Methinks possibly that it could mean a train in a station?

BUT..... I have had one shot inside of a station accepted on one day but a different shot of the station rejected on the next day. Go figure.

As long as it doesn't get to the point people are taking pictures of food trays, seats of trains, carpet and the such. :x :x :x (Much like the screeners at jp.net accept... tsk...tsk) No crapper shots either. :x :x :x

OK I've vented and feel better. :D

Anyway, to get back to your point ICE.... I suppose it all depends on the screeners interpretation of what a station shot should be. I would think there are some interesting train stations out there, new and old, worth looking at.

Keep the opinions coming..... and bring the forum to life.

iCe
08-30-2003, 04:00 AM
I edited my post a little...hehe, sorry...now your response no longer makes sense. :D

mu23
08-30-2003, 04:51 AM
Mr. Ice you may disagree with me but you also strengthen my case. Humans are fickle and inconsistent, so lets get them out of the picture (no pun intended). Screeners should screen for such things as advertisements, pornography etc and leave the rest to the users of the site. I don't need somebody else to tell me if your pictures are to my liking. I can think for myself.

mojo628
08-30-2003, 05:53 PM
That's OK ICE. My reply didn't make much sense before you added the pictures. :oops:

I'd have to say that you have a good point with good examples. Your photos (in my opinion) should be accepted. They seem to be similar in "motive" as others that have been accepted previously. (My platform shots of Central Station in Memphis didn't make the cut either.) That's not to say that somewhere along the line the standards were changed and we just didn't get the memo. :x

So you just might have to train your "bad motive" to behave and let it become a "good motive". :lol:

Mojo

Guilford350
08-30-2003, 06:22 PM
Different screeners, different views on photos. I've had a couple photos that I thought were nice but were rejected because of "foreground clutter" (or some other similar reasons) and then I had a few that I thought were bad and they were accepted. Go figure :P

I agree with your examples ICE (I think those photos should be accepted), but maybe the screeners are increasing the standard...?

iCe
08-30-2003, 06:37 PM
Now I feel better wether they get accepted or not! :D :D :lol:
thanks everyone :) :P :D

petertenthije
08-30-2003, 11:32 PM
I suppse it also has something to do with how rare a photo is.

For instance when you compared your VIA shot with the Gatwick Express shot. Compare the numbers of VIA photos with the numbers of Gatwick Express photos. VIA is very common, Gatwick Express can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

mu23
08-31-2003, 03:38 AM
That should be true. If you spend a few hours going through the site you'll see that some folks have zillions (o.k. billions) of redundant shots posted. Why do they get to be so boring and we can't?

Curtis Wininger
09-01-2003, 04:12 AM
About half those pictures are in the database, they were not rejected. Keep in mind that when you upload six shots of the same locomotive from different angles it has a better chance of being rejected than if you just upload one good shot of it. Read what other forum members have to say about the screening system. They make some good points.

You are always going to be able to compare your rejected picture with someone else's that was accepted. We are not machines. You have to undeerstand that photography is something that people see from different aspects. I would love to see a good wide angle shot any day over a tele. I like to see creativity, the train doesn't necessarily have to be the subject of the shot, as in the shot you said was cluttered. Does that shot have an identifiable subject? I can't pick out a single subject. Everything there comes together as one picture. In the picture of VIA 906, the subject is very clearly identifiable, and it is cluttered. If you happen to like cluttered photos, that's your opinion. Like I said, everyone's view of a photo may be different. Start a site called clutteredrailphotos.net and see how well it does. You may have more peers than you would think.

Let's say we have accepted some of the photos we actually rejected. In the future what would keep someone from using those in comparison with their own pictures that were rejected. I'll use a familiar example:

We had rejected a blurry photo for that reason, it was blurry. The appeal stated that it was "supposed to be blurry" because it was taken on infrared film. Say we had accepted that photo. Wouldn't that be the perfect opportunity for others to complain that this photo was blurry and theirs wasn't in comparison? Also, what would keep the people who take photos with high ISO ratings from complaining that their photos were rejected for being too grainy. "It's supposed to be grainy," they would say, "it was taken on 1600 ISO film."

Why do they get to be so boring and we can't?

Who is we? I don't see any evidence that there is a group being persecuted.

Also, keep in mind that we have an appeals process that has resulted in a picture being accepted upon second review more than once.

Chris Starnes
09-01-2003, 04:38 AM
There have been some good points made in this thread. Curtis has pretty much covered my thoughts on this issuue.

Removing the screening process not an option, that was the reason we started this site - to provide a database free of most of the crap you see at most of the other online photo databases/sites. If you can't deal with having your photos screened for acceptance, you should look for another place to share your work.

If you have a photo rejected, you are more than welcome to use the appeal function to get a better understanding of why it was rejected. If that doesn't satisfy you, the photography forums are a wonderful place for you to post a link to the rejected photos to see what the other members have to say about it. Please remember that rejected photos are only held in the database for 3 days before being automatically deleted.

We are working on a very detailed listing of things we are looking for in photos which will be posted on the add photos page over the next few weeks.

Let me remind you that no one here is paid for their work. We have other lives beside trains and computers, and as a result we cannot sit behind our computers 24/7 and act like robots to screen photos. We are not perfect....bear with us!

Thanks,
Chris