View Full Version : I guess it's my turn for a public apology

09-07-2003, 08:21 PM
As the subject says it's my turn to apologize to the screeners. I had several rejections, when there were photos that were accepted that were (as example) cropped the same as mine, in other words there were the same type of shots that were in the data base, while mine were rejected. After awhile I was frustrated to the point of being pissed off. I went as far as to ask my account be deleted, and my request was granted. I have reinstated my account, and have had several pitcures accepted, but again some that have been rejeceted for bad cropping, or too dark. I have appealed ones I thought were worthy of an appeal but the screeners won't even reply. Samething, to save everyones time, I asked what they meant by bad cropping, again no reply. I think that the rejection process needs to be evaluated and possibly reworked to include a better definitions for the rejection. This may cut down on the frustration factor, and the number of appeals. I have also noticed that there is not a standard screening process, but that may because the screeners here, see things differently screener to screener. I would like to see a set of guidelines posted so that there are no more complaining sessions and people don't feel they are being singled out for rejection.

But I digress.................

I understand that you guys have a huge amount of work in screening, and that some shots are far better than others. You do, do good work.
Sorry for being such a pain the first time around.

Al :oops:

Curtis Wininger
09-07-2003, 10:18 PM

Of the four rejected pictures I found, one was... I don't want to say blurry because the train was not a blur and it didn't look like it was caused by a slow shutter speed and camera movement, more unsharp if that's a word.

I saw another one that looked like it may have had some whitespace around the top border. I don't know if this was something in the top of the picture, or if it was caused by bad cropping. As for the others, the opening upload screen states that optimal pixel size is 1024 x 768. The higher the ratio of width and height, the more in the grey area you are going.

Chris has been gone for a few days, probably being the reason you didn't get a reply.

09-07-2003, 10:24 PM
Thanks for the fast reply. The blurry picture I agreed with. I realized that after I sent it. The cropping is just as I thought, they were smaller that ideal. I get this sight confused with photosig where cropping is a big issue, so when I submit things here chances I was cropping out of habit. Here I think that the environment around the railroad yard adds to the shot, as does the surrounding scenery in location shots. So now I have a better idea as to what you folks are looking for.

Thanks again,
Al :)

Chris Starnes
09-07-2003, 10:33 PM

We (I) am working on a list with some rejection reason explanations - I would hope to have this ready to put on the website within the next few weeks, if not sooner.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on your appeal. Chris (the other one) is prepping for a move to a new apartment and I have been trying to get back in the groove of college again after the summer break, so both of our internet time has been hit and miss as of late. This site is my "hobby"...not my job, so sometimes things here have to be put on the backburner until I get some other things taken care of first.

If you have a question about an appeal, you can post a link to it in either the photography or the digital processing forum - you are likely to get an answer quicker there than you might from one of us.



09-07-2003, 10:34 PM
Could you post the photos for us to see? This way we'd know what you are talking about.

09-07-2003, 10:42 PM
I'll try and find them. You know at that time I didn't have as many as I do now. It would be impoosible to post some of the older rejections.

Dumb question time now, how would I post them here in the forum, I have never done that.

I had thought about the bad cropping, and figured it was due to the white border, and I was right.

I have to say I really enjoy this site and appreciate what both Chris' have put together.

If you would like to send me the forum uploading to my normal email address it's: urslow@usermail.com

Thanks all for your replies and information.

Al :wink:

09-07-2003, 10:45 PM
You can't actually upload into the forums here, the photos need to have an URL, like the ones in the "members section" 3 days after the rejection.

09-07-2003, 10:47 PM
such as my personal web space that my ISP gives me?

09-07-2003, 11:35 PM
You could post your pics in another forum that allows image uploading and then post those pics here. That way you'll have an URL for them.

Curtis Wininger
09-07-2003, 11:49 PM
It doesn't matter who is hosting the picture, just post the link here. You can post the link from your ISP allotment here in a message. Just get the url (http://www.yourisp/yourusername/train.jpg), click URL above, paste the link, and click URL again to close the tag.

At least that's the way I :roll: think :roll: it's done.[/url]

09-08-2003, 12:54 AM
I don't see the need to upload the rejected photos, because the cropping issue has been resolved and the photos were accepted.

One thing that is confusing, and please understand I'm not complaining, just asking, I had 2 rejected as "Going Away" shots, but yet 1 was accepted. If this was a screening error and the picture needs to be removed I understand, but was just wondeing why 2 were rejected and 1 accepted. Again it may be just the screeners see them differently.

Anyhow, no more beating the perverbial dead horse.

Al :D

09-08-2003, 02:46 AM
I had the same issue with the "Going Away" shots. The way Curtis explained to me made some sense. He said that they don't usually accept the going away shots unless it's a special exception. Maybe Curtis or another screener could explain the "exceptions" better.

Curtis Wininger
09-08-2003, 04:17 PM
Accepting the one going away shot was not an error. I did that fearing another screening consistency rambling, but expecting I would I have to explain my thinking. I appreciate your noncombatant approach to this. :P

The shot I accepted was nicely composed as far as lighting and at least there was a background to it. Most photos rejected for being going away shots are not rejected for that alone.

Curits Wininger

09-08-2003, 08:26 PM
my going away shot had a back-ground and was, IMO, nicely composed...oooops


Curtis Wininger
09-08-2003, 10:34 PM
So was your front view, 45 degree right view, and side view.


Curtis Wininger

09-08-2003, 11:16 PM

09-09-2003, 01:21 AM
I see no point in being combative, all it does is create enemies and cause problems. You might say I learned the hard way in a sense, and know that I have a better understanding of the process and got it through my hard head that it wasn't a personal thing, then things got better. The screeners are answering questions and more picture are being accepted. I did notice one thing and I want everyone to know that the rejections I did receive yesterday, all had clear reasons for the rejection, that alone makes it easier to know what to submit and what not to.

Thanks to Curtis for his clear reason, and thanks to Chris for still rejecting my appeal :D I understand this so much better.

These guys bust their butts to look at the many pictures they receive everyday, how they have a life outside of this is beyond me. Keep up the great work guys!


Curtis Wininger
09-09-2003, 01:25 AM
Thank you very much. I would much rather accept a photo than reject it. That is for sure. Keep the photos coming!

Curtis Wininger

09-09-2003, 03:01 AM
I would much rather accept a photo than reject it.

That's good to hear! :D :lol: :lol: