PDA

View Full Version : Rejections


Rod Williams
05-10-2005, 08:18 AM
I'm beginning to think there is a little too much in the way of subjectivity and not enough 'rules' when pics are rejected or accepted. For instance here's a shot that got top photo http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=105145
If I'd sent this to another site it would have been rejected because of the colour cast. Whereas my pic http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=123403 gets rejected a/c too dark. Its fog, there's generally not a light of light in fog, do they want sunshine in every shot. Apparently not, and yellow snow is fine. I'm not knocking the yellow snow shot, I know how difficult it would have been to get but 37 seconds in photo shop might have fixed the colours.
My point being if the screeners are going to accept one shot taken in low light and foul weather then why not another ?

cmherndon
05-10-2005, 09:48 AM
I'm beginning to think there is a little too much in the way of subjectivity and not enough 'rules' when pics are rejected or accepted. For instance here's a shot that got top photo http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=105145

It is deserving of the honor. It's a relatively well lit night snow shot. A little more could be said for the image quality, but it's a nice shot.

If I'd sent this to another site it would have been rejected because of the colour cast. Whereas my pic http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=123403 gets rejected a/c too dark. Its fog, there's generally not a light of light in fog,

Right, there's not a lot of light in fog. You should adjust your exposure accordingly. Besides, comparing a dark fog shot to a well lit snow shot is totally irrelevant.

do they want sunshine in every shot. Apparently not, and yellow snow is fine.

Just don't eat said snow.

I'm not knocking the yellow snow shot

Sounds to me as though the "yellow snow shot" is being knocked.

I'm not knocking the yellow snow shot, I know how difficult it would have been to get but 37 seconds in photo shop might have fixed the colours.

Thirty-seven? The color looks fine to me.

My point being if the screeners are going to accept one shot taken in low light and foul weather then why not another ?

Because the snow shot is a lot better.

Ru1056
05-10-2005, 10:23 AM
If I'd sent this to another site it would have been rejected because of the colour cast.

Which site?

I think what sets the first picture off is the train in the background. The light reflecting off of the snow is a unique look. Had your picture had a head light in it,then maybe it would be more appealing. But then if yours had a headlight in the shot, then you wouldn't be able to see the train from the glare and the angle the shot was taken.

Billy

Rod Williams
05-10-2005, 12:43 PM
Right, there's not a lot of light in fog. You should adjust your exposure accordingly. Besides, comparing a dark fog shot to a well lit snow shot is totally irrelevant.

The exposure is spot on, it's a dull scene







Sounds to me as though the "yellow snow shot" is being knocked.

No it's not.



Thirty-seven? The color looks fine to me.

If that colour looks good to you then I don't have to worry about your opinion because you obviously haven't got a clue about colour correction for shots taken under artificial lighting.



Because the snow shot is a lot better.

Matter of opinion.

Rod Williams
05-10-2005, 12:55 PM
Which site?

I think what sets the first picture off is the train in the background. The light reflecting off of the snow is a unique look. Had your picture had a head light in it,then maybe it would be more appealing. But then if yours had a headlight in the shot, then you wouldn't be able to see the train from the glare and the angle the shot was taken.

Billy
Billy the shot was taken from the drivers seat of the other train ( that's the one you can't see ) so figure out how to change the angle and I'll gladly comply. Then figure the closing speed of the two trains, that it was poorly lit, still managed to focus and no camera shake and I still come up with what I know to be a correct exposure------that's the way I saw it and that's the way the camera got it. There's a lot of great work on this site, there are also some glaringly obvious anomalies when it comes to rejections. Just out of curiosity Billy, how many shots have you got on this site and if you have a web site I'd love to see it cos mate, if you're going to be a critic lets have a look at what makes you qualified to do so. I don't mind eating humble pie and I'll be the first to stick my hand up and say "I was wrong " if you turn out to be the latter day Steinheimer.

Ween
05-10-2005, 02:33 PM
The exposure is spot on, it's a dull scene

Well, if it's a dull scene, it can be reasoned that it is a dull photo. So why are you so bent out of shape that it didn't get accepted if it's so dull? The snow shot looks cool, it's got life, and it's unique.

Sometimes I think people need to take the "My shots are always great" glasses off and look at their stuff through a set of reality glasses. But that's just me. Being able to admit your photos might not be up to snuff and not place blame on the screeners or the 'standards' would cause a lot less unwarranted animosoty when one gets a reject...

Ween
05-10-2005, 02:45 PM
Just out of curiosity Billy, how many shots have you got on this site and if you have a web site I'd love to see it cos mate, if you're going to be a critic lets have a look at what makes you qualified to do so. I don't mind eating humble pie and I'll be the first to stick my hand up and say "I was wrong " if you turn out to be the latter day Steinheimer.<!-- / message -->

I didn't read this when I posted my last post, and I figured I had to comment. Look, Rod, Billy was offering advice and his opinion (which you asked for, I'm guessing, since you started this thread regarding your rejected photo). Billy, or none of us, have to be Steinheimer to offer our opinions when asked. You've already dismissed Caleb Herndon and now Billy because they don't 'qualify' to voice their opinions about photography in your mind.

Now, if you want to see what I've got and how I 'qualify,' click the link below and it'll take you to my stuff. I'm no expert in this field, I'm learning as I go so I'm no professional, but I think I have enough experience to qualify me to say that your fog photo is not good, not even close.

So, even though I'm no Steinheimer, I think it's time you stuck your hand up, said "I was wrong," and get your fill of humble pie...

***the comments expressed in the post are the sole ownership of Chris Paulhamus and are in no way affiliated with Railpictures.net or its staff***

ccaranna
05-10-2005, 03:49 PM
Billy the shot was taken from the drivers seat of the other train ( that's the one you can't see ) so figure out how to change the angle and I'll gladly comply. Then figure the closing speed of the two trains, that it was poorly lit, still managed to focus and no camera shake and I still come up with what I know to be a correct exposure------that's the way I saw it and that's the way the camera got it.

Rod, please tell me you weren't actually DRIVING the other train.

Sounds to me like there were too many adversities here affecting the outcome of the shot. Yes, the intent was great, but maybe it was the actual execution that failed. I do not know your photography skills, but perhaps this shot- no matter how original and insightful, might have been better accomplished by a professional photographer.

What I've come across in my own work, (and believe me, I'm still pretty new at this) is that I have a great idea of what I think will be a great shot, however I don't have the skills and experience yet to get the results that I want. I've noticed improvements in the last year or so, simply by taking a class, listening to people and accpeting their criticism, advice, opinions, and just by continually shooting, shooting and shooting!

Chuck

<A HREF="http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=5402">Click Here</A> to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

ccaranna
05-10-2005, 03:58 PM
Of course, I just checked, and Rod has 115 photos on the site. Like he's really going to listen to a newbie like me!!

Sorry

Donna
05-10-2005, 06:08 PM
:lol: Believe it or not, he knows what he is doing. :lol:

Ru1056
05-10-2005, 09:00 PM
Duplicate post sorry.

Billy

Ru1056
05-10-2005, 09:06 PM
Just out of curiosity Billy, how many shots have you got on this site and if you have a web site I'd love to see it cos mate, if you're going to be a critic lets have a look at what makes you qualified to do so.

I dont have any pictures on this site. I recenetly became a father for the first time in December and I find my son to be more important than taking pictures of trains right now. And no, I do not have a website.

If you do not like opinions do not ask. I usually offer advice or opinions on photos in these forums. Is it because I think I am better person? No. I enjoy this hobby, and right now my enjoyment comes from viewing the photos on this site.

If you took a photo and had your thumb in the way, do I have to have 2,000 photos in the database to be "qualified" to say it is a crappy shot? Whats your idea of "qualified"?

Also, I am not going to get in a flame war with you. If you wish to discuss things in the forum, by all means do so. But do not belittle those who offer advice or opinions or attempt to call some of us stupid in a round about way.



Billy

Rod Williams
05-11-2005, 12:02 AM
Firstly, thanks Donna. And to you other guys, I'm sorry you've missed the point. I was not saying my shot was outstanding or even good. I was simply asking why one shot taken in the dark could be deemed ok and another taken under similarly adverse lighting conditions is deemed to be 'too dark'. That was the scene, it is a perfectly valid railroad scene.
And was I driving the train.......absolutely.......and I am sure that any train driver will tell you that's it's fine to take your hands off the controls and leave them off for anything from 2 seconds to 22 minutes depending on the circumstances. I could have stopped that train simply by taking my foot off the dead mans pedal.

4kV
05-11-2005, 01:31 AM
Out of curiousity, why post something if you are going to get your undies in a bunch when people comment? The picture is not what the screeners are looking for, that's the way it is. I'm sure you will be able to take many more good ones to share with us. It's one picture. Damn, if I bitched and complained on this forum every time I had one rejected, I'd be the most senior member on here for having hundreds of posts.

RJSorensen
05-12-2005, 04:00 PM
For what it is worth . . . and in my experience with fog, the eye corrects and the head interprets the reflecting light we call sight . . . differently than the lens of a camera records the same scene to film or sensor. I remember the shot differently than the photograph in my hand, most times.

The merits of this shot are different than what "I" believe RPN's prime directive is. I think they are after and quite openly so, cover shots for magazines. Once I got my head around this . . . and it is no knock to this type shot, things have gone some better for me. Being the new kid on the block here, one should not listen to me, but if you work with 'cover shot' in mind your 'luck' will improve. This will also spare you from uploading some shots . . . that however good they may be . . . won't make cover shots.

ccaranna
05-12-2005, 04:21 PM
"I" believe RPN's prime directive is. I think they are after and quite openly so, cover shots for magazines.

You know, I never really thought of it that way! That comment really makes sense. It may ultimately change the way I start looking and thinking of composing my shots from now on.

Thanks,

Chuck

Joe the Photog
05-12-2005, 04:27 PM
I'm beginning to think there is a little too much in the way of subjectivity and not enough 'rules' when pics are rejected or accepted.

By it's very nature, photography and how one views it is and always will be at least partially subjective. There's no other way around it. I may look at one POTW on this site and think it's horrible while 999 other people think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

To think that ten guys on this site that screens these shots -- the ten is just a guess -- can be totally and completely in line with one another on what goes in and what doesn't is simply foolish. But also to compare a late night snow shot to a completely different early morning fog shot doesn't make sense either.


Joe

Joe the Photog
05-12-2005, 04:32 PM
My point being if the screeners are going to accept one shot taken in low light and foul weather then why not another ?

That's an absurd comment. The opposite of that is that if the screeners are going to accept one shot taken in great weather with blue skies, then why not all the rest? Well, duh, because the shot still has to make the grade. I'm not a big fan of the shot you compared your too. It just doesn't knock my socks off, of you will -- I may be in theminority on that, it is POTW now -- but whether or not that shot is good or not has no direct bearing on your shot or visa-versa.

My opinion? The fog shot of the oncming train is dull. It doesn'tstand out. It's not crisp. Some of this might be due to the fact that it's too foggy. Some of it may be corrected in Photoshop, I don't know. The front of the train is almost obscurred by the fog.


Joe H.