View Full Version : A few rejections

05-08-2004, 02:07 AM
I had a few photos rejected, two for back lighting and one apparently because there is no train in it. According to the posting guidelines,
1. Please only upload photos which you have taken. Very important!
2. The photos must be in JPEG (with the extension .jpg) format.
3. The photos must depict railroad-related material.

So -- the two that were rejected for back lighting were photos of Delta Southern, and I guess I thought they might be rare enough to merit a little more consideration. The one that was rejected for no train is a photo of two tunnels on the Utah RR. (Or is that RWy?)

Anyway, see http://www.geocities.com/earl_needham/trains.html for the two rejected for lighting, and see http://www.geocities.com/earl_needham/trains2.html for the photo rejected for no train.

Is there actually a requirement for a train to be in a photo to be accepted?


Curtis Wininger
05-08-2004, 02:17 AM
On the first link, one photo is below minimum pixel requirements and a little unlevel. The other is, in fact, backlit.

As for the second one, why can't you just take the picture with a train in it? There's no reason to not make the effort and submit photos of empty tracks, unless it's somehow necessary. Some photos look better look complete without a train. This one looks like it's set up for a train, but there's not one there. Rather than stand alone and have a complete look, it seems more like it's lacking something.

Chris Starnes
05-08-2004, 02:22 AM
I would stand behind what Curtis has said here.....

05-08-2004, 02:22 AM
Well, I'm a truck driver, and I couldn't wait for a train to get to one of those tunnels. I happened to stop along the road north of Helper to let my truck cool and -- there they were! Get the camera and take a picture, QUICK!!! Unfortunately, time is a terrible master. :-(

As for the Delta Southern shots -- I get the feeling that it boils down to whether a screener likes the shot or not. Not that it's a bad thing, that's why the site has screeners.


05-08-2004, 02:36 AM
On the first link, one photo is below minimum pixel requirements and a little unlevel. The other is, in fact, backlit.

Just took a quick look at the originals -- they are both 1600 X 1200! I guess Geocities shrunk them down a bit?


Curtis Wininger
05-08-2004, 02:43 AM
I considered something like that had happened, but I figured I would point it out just to be safe. On the opposite end of that, 1600 x 1200 is pretty big.

05-09-2004, 10:40 AM
First the screener rejected it for bad light, which is a crock , then you say its too small, now its too big ?

Its hard to play a game when the rules keep changing.

Curtis Wininger
05-09-2004, 02:46 PM

Is your sole purpose here just to bicker and argue? I'm giving answers as straight up as I can and sticking with what I say. If you are serious about your opinions, the least you could do is use your real name to stand behind them rather than an Internet world mask.

If you had read the whole thread and took the time to understand it rather than being in such a hurry to reply, you would have seen that we are talking about two different sets of files. The photos on geocities are too small. If he had uploaded those exact files, they would have been rejected for being too small. If the files are 1600 x 1200, they probably would not have generated a thumbnail. The rules stayed the same. It's the photo files that have changed.

05-12-2004, 10:24 PM
I can't see anything really wrong with the first one, from what I can see the actual horizon is level. It looks like you were using a wide angle lens, which can cause distortions that may make objects appear to recede or converge towards a point in the frame. When using a wide angle lens, it is important to keep the camera more or less parallel to the ground. Unless you have a tilt-shift lens, or a view camera of some sort, you just have to be very careful to control the perspective of the shot.

If need be, back up a little bit, and zoom in some. Longer focal length lenses don't have the distortion issues of wide angle lenses.

As far as the second one is concerned, it has good shadow detail, so I don't completely buy the lighting argument, but maybe you should have moved slightly off to one side (preferably to the one that had the better light) and included some more of the scenery in the shot. Although it sometimes makes things look unnaturally lit, at such a close range, you could probably have used a little fill flash to brighten up the nose a bit. If you camera has the cabablility of dialing down the fill ratio to about a half ot a full stop below the ambient light, you can minimize the effect of the flash on the well lit areas, while giving the shadows a little help without completely illuminating them.