Now this rejection isn't fair at all

[emfinite]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=86065

Ok, this one got rejected for under exposure. I'm usually not one to complain about my pictures being rejected, but this rejection really made no sense at all. The photo was taken at 7:30AM while the sun was rising over the Hudson River. Sure, I'm on the west side of the tracks while it would have been better if I was on the east side, but in my opinon, everything in this photo is perfect the way it is.

Comments or criticism, anyone?

Thanks,
Joe

[David Telesha]

Its a very nice morning shot.

If anything its slightly over-exposed note the headlight over the cab.

[Wade H. Massie]

I like the photo and the exposure. Did you appeal the rejection? The screeners are usually quite reasonable if you present a good reason for an appeal.

-Wade

[Lord Vader]

Please appeal that.

[JButler]

Very neat photo. The angle and lighting make it. Good eye!

[Guilford350]

I like the photo. The angle is good and the scenery is nice also.

Just watch out for that date, though. I don't think it snows during July in New York. :wink:

[cdhsvarsity]

what i always do is send it again on a differnet day with a different screener

[Lord Vader]

That's a quick way to get your account closed.

what i always do is send it again on a differnet day with a different screener

[NicTrain35]

Joe, That is a very nice morning shot! Keep up the great work! :)
Nick

[JButler]

CSXCTCWeb wrote

"That's a quick way to get your account closed."


Really, why? I have resubmitted photos after making corrections. Since I don't know of a way to know what screener is going to see the photo, what difference would it make if I resubmit it. Also, even if I don't make any change to a rejected image, why would it be a big deal to resubmit it?

I have read more than one screener, in discussions on this forum, state that they would have accepted a rejected photo. Claims of screening consistency aside, obviously, screening is subjective and subject to individual screeners tastes. What would be wrong with a member taking a chance that another screener may look at their photo and like it better than the screener that rejected it.

If resubmitting a photo is grounds for deleting a members account, I think a bunch of us may be goners.

[cdhsvarsity]

about 1/3 third of my photos that were accepted were submitted more than once after rejections

[Lord Vader]

I am referring to the resubmission of uncorrected photos, trolling for a sympathetic screener. It increases our workload unnecessarily. If your photo is rejected for a non-technical reason, please do not resubmit it.

[Ken Carr]

I wasn't going to get into this thread but "non-technical reason" would you mind explaining your self. What is your interpretation of a non-technical reason? Seems to me most of the reasons for rejection is for a tech reason
And to add what Jim wrote earlier, I make a change to my photo resizing, lighten or darken or sharpen I have no idea who I'm sending it back to for review.
I realize I can monitor certain screeners when they are on line but big deal.

[brunswickrailfan]

Cut the bottom and right portions of the photo off (about an inch). It's just dead space. Other than that, appeal.

:wink:

[Lord Vader]

A list of non-technical reasons: bad motive, blurry, out of focus, bad angle, poor lighting (backlit or too dark), distracting shadows, and safety risk (that's a rare one thankfully).

Those cannot be corrected in Photoshop or whatever your program of choice is. If a photo is rejected for those reasons, just appeal it. If the appeal is denied, let it go.

[JButler]

CSXCTCWeb wrote

“I am referring to the resubmission of uncorrected photos, trolling for a sympathetic screener. It increases our workload unnecessarily. If your photo is rejected for a non-technical reason, please do not resubmit it.”


I’ll have to stick with my contention that there is enough difference between screeners tastes that it is not necessarily “trolling for sympathy” as much as seeing if there is a screener that likes what I like. Resubmitting a photo shouldn’t add to the workload anymore than filing an appeal.

If the screeners were as like minded as you would have us believe, this would be a legitimate issue. Since it is obvious that that is not the case, I think members should be allowed to resubmit any rejected photo, with or without corrections. The fact that this has worked for many members, including myself, is evidence that the process has a place here.

[Lord Vader]

Thank you for your opinion. However, the rule stands.

[Ween]

Hard to argue with Darth! :lol:

[Lord Vader]

I always seem to be the bearer of bad news and stuff that people don't like, so I figured I may as well try to put some humor into it. :wink:

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Hard to argue with Darth! :lol:

[JButler]

Ween wrote,
"Hard to argue with Darth!"

I wasn't arguing, just stating facts.

CSXCTCWeb (Darth) wrote,

"Thank you for your opinion. However, the rule stands."

Didn't know it was a rule until you brought it up in this thread. I doubt the revelation of the "rule" will alter the way folks submit/resubmit. However, thanks for the info.


Jim B.

[cmherndon]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I honestly think y'all are just making a mountain out of a molehill on the entire subject. It's not that big of a deal. Everyone gets photos rejected, and you can appeal said rejections. A rejection is not worth getting all worked up about. Appeal it, or let it go. Just think, if there wasn't a screening process, RP would be like that other railroad photography site out there. I'll pick quality over quanity any day.

[Lord Vader]

Those doing so will find out. This has become a problem for us and it must stop. Your help by not doing so would be appreciated.


Didn't know it was a rule until you brought it up in this thread. I doubt the revelation of the "rule" will alter the way folks submit/resubmit. However, thanks for the info.


Jim B.

[Chris Starnes]

If you have a photo rejected and are unable to correct the issues (sharpening, level/brightness, cropping, etc) you have no business re-uploading it. With the amount of photos we go through every day seeing someone just trying to get a photo "through" the system by uncorrected reuploads really does upset me and the rest of the crew.

I hope this doesn't become a bigger problem than it has already.

In other news, thanks to the rest of the screening crew picking up the slack this weekend while I was out in LA. Nice work guys.

[mtrails]

It would seem like a wasted effort to re-upload a non-edited photo. I agree with the screener's. Regardless of taste, they all abide by the same screening guidelines. If I am on my 3rd re-upload (after MAKING adjustments), and still get the same rejection, I might try to appeal it before decide to let it go.

[Adam3291]

Do yall got any other thing better to do than argue? How about going out and trying to improve your photography skills. Only reason I "MIGHT" double upload is if I truely thing that picture is perfect. You guys need to stop acting like boys and start acting like men.

Adam Parsons
NS Linwood Yard

[Joe]

The problem is is that the photographer thinks the shot is very good (because they wouldn't be trying to re-upload if they thought it didn't have a second chance.) and they try to correct it based on the rejection reason, while the screeners obviously thing the shot still sucks, and they just keep on rejecting it. The screeners don't bother adding comments to the reject to say "WE DON'T WANT IT," so the photographer keeps on re-uploading. :roll: :roll:

Oh, and Caleb wrote:
"Just think, if there wasn't a screening process, RP would be like that other railroad photography site out there. I'll pick quality over quanity any day."

If that other site had at least a screening process that got rid of only non-real train shots and shots that were obviously horrible in some way, and it had a better photo-viewing system, I'd never send my photos here.[/i]

[Ween]

How about going out and trying to improve your photography skills.

Nah; it's cloudy. :lol:

And I had to work during the daylight today. :(

[boxtop]

I like the composition of this image, but its suffering from some basic digital pitfalls. Among them, lack of a good black-point and a yellow color cast. I don't think you've necessarily under or overexposed this image. With a digital image, headlights are going to blow out if you expect to get decent exposure on the face on the train, especially in this tricky lighting situation.

I worked on this image in Photoshop, here's a before and after (after on the bottom):

<IMG SRC ="http://www.guyrhodes.com/photo/conrail_beforeafter.jpg">

I simply adjusted the levels till I hit "black" on the bottom end, getting rid of the big empty part of the histogram (left side). Next, I did an overall color correction in the hilights and midtones, adding blue to compensate for the yellow cast. I did some more selective color correction on the trees, dodged the front of the loco a touch, applied some shadow/hilight compensation to the ballast, and finally, dodged in the sky to get rid of the haze up there.

If you want me to pull this image, I will right away. Just wanted to show you what kind of "fixes" were possible.

Bottom line - you should be in rail photography for yourself, not this or any other web site or club. So what if your image is rejected? Go to Wal Mart, make a big 8x10, stick it on your wall and LOVE IT! I've had a few rejected images on this site and I learned to let it slide, because again, the final "screener" with my work is myself. If I like it, that's what counts.

Happy Shooting!

-Guy Rhodes
http://www.guyrhodes.com

[rpalmer]

I like the composition of this image, but its suffering from some basic digital pitfalls. Among them, lack of a good black-point and a yellow color cast. I don't think you've necessarily under or overexposed this image. With a digital image, headlights are going to blow out if you expect to get decent exposure on the face on the train, especially in this tricky lighting situation.

I worked on this image in Photoshop........

This seems like a lot of work to compensate for a dark nose and light that wasn't quite strong enough for pictures (at least this kind).
In my opinion, the best advice for this photo is to go back and take it in the summer, when the sun is strongly on the nose during the early morning hours (I know this spot well).
Of course, you won't have the frozen river or the bits of snow along the rails. However, I don't think they add enough to this photo to compensate for it's other "issues".

[boxtop]

Rpalmer:

I agree that some frontlight on the nose might have been nice, but I also appeaciate the risk that the shooter took in capturing the mood here.

As a lighting designer, I appreciate lighting outside of the "safe" realm that a lot of people seem to shoot for ALL THE TIME. Its in the wackiest, most "unsuitable" lighting conditions that I've captured my favorite rail images:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=62116

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=55631

Give me "backlit" anyday! :wink:

[chris crook]

Rpalmer:

I agree that some frontlight on the nose might have been nice, but I also appeaciate the risk that the shooter took in capturing the mood here.


Give me "backlit" anyday! :wink:

No. Toe the line.

[chauncey87]

A list of non-technical reasons: bad motive, blurry, out of focus, bad angle, poor lighting (backlit or too dark), distracting shadows, and safety risk (that's a rare one thankfully).

Those cannot be corrected in Photoshop or whatever your program of choice is. If a photo is rejected for those reasons, just appeal it. If the appeal is denied, let it go.

Just curious: what exactly is "safety risk"?