PDA

View Full Version : New rejection category?

Dave Brook
03-02-2005, 03:06 PM
How about JNGE. The "Just not Good Enough" rejection would represent a picture that has merit, but in the opinion of the editor isn't good enough for the site. It might help prevent the confusion and frustration that comes from a "Bad Motive" or "Bad Angle" rejection that the photagrapher doesn't understand. Or have I just got rejection slip shock?

Comments,

Cheers,

Dave
MOJAX
03-02-2005, 03:54 PM
If one of my photos were rejected with JNGE, my next thought would be Why? I would then consider putting the photo up to the forum to get opinions on what everyone thought. From the responses I could then either "let it go" or "fix or correct" the photo and then re-submit?

I'm not a screener but it seems like a good idea to me.
Dave Brook
03-02-2005, 04:01 PM
This rejected this morning for bad angle. Clarification on appeal was blank. Is it JNGE?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=99352

Comments,

Dave
Wade H. Massie
03-02-2005, 05:04 PM
That's not a bad shot, but there's one thing that jumps out at me - the cyan tint in the highlights. If you're using Photoshop you should be able to fix it using Selective Color. Just select white and take out some of the cyan.

-Wade
Dave Brook
03-02-2005, 10:41 PM
It's been rejected on appeal so I'm not going to beat a dead horse. I'm trying to point out that the editing is subjective. If we don't like the opinions, we are free to go somewhere else. Based on the quality of the pictures on the site, rejection should come as no surprise on occasion. I think that for reasons that are hard to quantify, some pictures aren't just good enough. There's no point in trying to tweak them and resubmitting them over and over again (guilty as charged). Some just won't be good enough. Hence the new category. More feedback would be helpful(see other link) but rejection isn't the end of the world.

cheers,

Dave
Chessie4033
03-02-2005, 11:53 PM
Or, a rejection category of "Photo does not meet the needs of the site." It doesn't say it is necessarily a "bad" photo, and gets the point across that the screener doesn't think it belongs on the site. It could also be used to cover a wide range of problems/reasons. I suppose, though, that people will question rejections no matter what the reason. So I doubt there is any magic answer that will end it.
Guilford350
03-03-2005, 01:42 PM
Or, a rejection category of "Photo does not meet the needs of the site." It doesn't say it is necessarily a "bad" photo, and gets the point across that the screener doesn't think it belongs on the site. It could also be used to cover a wide range of problems/reasons. I suppose, though, that people will question rejections no matter what the reason. So I doubt there is any magic answer that will end it.

I think that is what 'bad motive' is for.
Chessie4033
03-03-2005, 06:23 PM
I think that is what 'bad motive' is for.

That is the rejection reason I had in mind. It really seems to confuse people and causes a lot of grief. So why speak in code? Why not call a spade a spade? Maybe a little confussion would be avoided.
Guilford350
03-03-2005, 06:50 PM
That is the rejection reason I had in mind. It really seems to confuse people and causes a lot of grief. So why speak in code? Why not call a spade a spade? Maybe a little confussion would be avoided.

A description for bad motive is included in the reason for rejection.