Never had this before...

[Guilford350]

I don't complain much about rejections but today this photo, http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=87886, kept getting rejected for "needs to be closer to 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600". Four tries later and it finally gets accepted. Sorry to bring this to the forums.

1st try- http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=75162 - 965 x 814
I agreed on this one. Not wide enough and little too tall.

2nd try- http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=75267 - 1024 x 814
Too tall, I guess.

3rd try- http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=75274 - 1024 x 799
Still too tall, I guess.

On the successful 4th try I made the photo 1024 x 749 in order to compensate for the extra 19 pixels the black band adds on. This made the photo exactly 1024 x 768.

I have never had this problem before. Many of my current photos are about 1024 x 800 or so and some recent additions to the site are around 1024 x 700. Do photos over 768 pixels wide automatically get rejected? But photos under 768 pixels wide do not? Have standards been increased again? Again, sorry to bring this to the forums but I thought others might benefit from this as well.

[Lord Vader]

I rejected a few of those. We are attempting to cut back on the recent increase in poorly cropped images and establish more image size continuity in the database. It does not need to be exactly 1024x768 or 800x600, but at least be in the ballpark. The key is to not submit "square" or "strip" images.

[Guilford350]

Okay, I see now. Thank you. So if I submit a 1024 x 725 photo, it wont get rejected? Oversize=bad? Undersize=good?

[Lord Vader]

MikeF, we already have that. We just word it more elegantly.

Yes, 1024x725 will get in. It's those 1024x600 and 800x750 images that tend to get rejected. 9 out of 10 times, there is dead space that can be cropped out.

[cmherndon]

I doubt you could find any rail magazine or book in which every photo is cropped to a 1:1 1/3 proportion.

But this site is not exactly a book or magazine now is it?

[Lord Vader]

Would that be the "bad motive" that nobody understands? Yeah, that's elegant.[/quote]

Again, you have no clue.

[Joe]

"Would that be the "bad motive" that nobody understands? Yeah, that's elegant.

Again, you have no clue."

You guys have already said that "bad motive" basically means "We don't like it." Nobody has ever complained of "We are disinclined to accept your photo due to the fact that one or more persons who have viewed this photo in the process of deciding whether or not to accept it, did not think it should be added to our database," so I guess you haven't been using that "more elegant" one. :lol:

[Lord Vader]

Well, I don't like to use bad motive :) Seriously, I try to explain. The goal of screening is to:

A.) Get the photos that meet site standards accepted into the database.

B.) For those photos rejected (harsh term I realize), I try to give the exact reason. In fact, I have a custom list that I use that provide more detail than what is provided in the system list of rejections.

C.) To provide tips and support to the contributors. While many people may not have seen this specifically, it is not unusual for me to make comments such as "good lighting and composition, but can you crop this or that, remove that bit of dust above the cab, etc."

Keep in mind, we screen A LOT of photos every day. In fact, today I have screened over 250. This is a time consuming task and in light of the fact that we do this as a hobby, we ask that everyone be understanding of that. We appreciate you taking the time to share your photos. This site cannot exist without that! Thank you! We try our best to be fair and apply standards as such, but we are human. If you feel that you have been given the shaft, please appeal it! If that doesn't work, well that's the way it is. As a contributor myself, I had a rejection yesterday on this site and can wallpaper my house with magazine rejection slips. You just keep at it!