RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Really? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16372)

nikos1 05-19-2013 03:42 PM

Really?
 
.......
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...61&key=6074276

Joe the Photog 05-19-2013 03:53 PM

Yes, Nikos, really. Per RP's definition, that shot is backlit. If you take the backlit out of the equation and leave the Poor Ligting, maybe it will be easier to stomach.

nikos1 05-19-2013 05:30 PM

[photoid=436478]
[photoid=436052]

troy12n 05-19-2013 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 166650)
[photoid=436478]
[photoid=436052]

Were those screened in the same queue as yours? If not, you dont have a legitimate argument.

We all know how inconsistently applied the rules/criteria are applied here. And the database is full of examples.

nikos1 05-19-2013 06:14 PM

The first one was.

JRMDC 05-19-2013 07:24 PM

Nikos, yours has the distinct presence of harsh mid-day summer light - we are only a month from the summer equinox. There will be better-lit shots taken at this site down the road and they will get in.

nikos1 05-19-2013 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 166653)
Nikos, yours has the distinct presence of harsh mid-day summer light - we are only a month from the summer equinox. There will be better-lit shots taken at this site down the road and they will get in.

Thats absurd......it was taken after 6PM, sorry but check your eyes.

Freericks 05-19-2013 07:39 PM

My first reaction was that it was overexposed. Wonder if you would do better pulling down the highlights.

That being said, seeing how you are reacting to those who try to help, you may not want any.

nikos1 05-19-2013 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 166655)
My first reaction was that it was overexposed. Wonder if you would do better pulling down the highlights.

That being said, seeing how you are reacting to those who try to help, you may not want any.

Saying its high sun at 6PM is not really help. You're right it may be overexposed, but thats not what it was rejected for so not sure how much good that would do.

Freericks 05-19-2013 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 166656)
Saying its high sun at 6PM is not really help. You're right it may be overexposed, but thats not what it was rejected for so not sure how much good that would do.

I have experienced having it rejected for A, looking again and seeing the B was an issue (or the issue), fixing B and resubmitting - only to have it accepted.

JRMDC 05-19-2013 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 166656)
Saying its high sun at 6PM is not really help. You're right it may be overexposed, but thats not what it was rejected for so not sure how much good that would do.

"high sun" is a state of mind, so to speak. :)

What it really means is the light looks terrible, in this case you shot has the harsh nature of a mid-day shot, and the short shadows caused by a bad sun angle, which can be caused by high-sun or poorly-placed sun.

The actual time of day does not matter ...

The actual time of day does not matter ...

The actual time of day does not matter ...

The actual time of day does not matter ...

So get over your high horse. Or your childish attitude, whatever it is. It looks like high sun, harsh. That is your problem, the appearance, whatever the screeners, I, or others name it. It may indeed, as Charles suggests, be fixable. But that it needs fixing, rather than complaining, is not in question to anyone who has participated in this thread, as far as I can tell, with the exception of yourself.

JRMDC 05-19-2013 08:54 PM

As for matching the rejection reason, I can think of any number of times where, in particular, the rejection is bad color but the problem turns out to be bad contrast. They said bad light. True, they did not say high sun. But you never want to give a screener a reason to reject your shot if you can help it, they will often jump on board.

Find a fix, it needs one.

JimThias 05-19-2013 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 166648)
Really?

Really.

.

Andrew Crosby 05-19-2013 11:04 PM

I can see how this rejection hurts since it's a good shot in so many ways. But it does seem overexposed or affected by the placement / angle of the sun. The other accepted shots you posted here, Nikos, do have lighting issues, but they are warmer and richer looking, which may have tipped the scales in their favor.

I would think it's worth taking the highlights down and resubmitting, though. Or waiting till the angle of the sun improves as JR indicated and reshooting.

JimThias 05-20-2013 12:10 AM

Nikos, if you knew the sun was at that angle in relation to the train, why didn't you get more directly in front of it? If you could have moved to your left you would have had direct nose light and still kept the skyline. Unless that wasn't possible...which in that case your next option would have been to zoom in a bit to catch it head on before it went into the curve.

bigbassloyd 05-20-2013 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 166655)

That being said, seeing how you are reacting to those who try to help, you may not want any.

Like

Loyd L.

nikos1 05-20-2013 01:50 AM

Its not high sun literally, figuratively or any other way. Short shadows are hardly an indicator of high sun whatever you may think the term means.

Either I got lucky screener fishing or they decided to accept it because I fixed a different issue than the original rejection, anyways thanks for the idea Charles.
[photoid=436581]

Joe the Photog 05-20-2013 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 166664)
Its not high sun literally, figuratively or any other way.

Reason #47 to get rid of the High Sun and Backlit rejections and just call it Poor Lighting.

The shot still has a funky look to it. Can't put my finger on it.

troy12n 05-20-2013 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 166665)
The shot still has a funky look to it. Can't put my finger on it.

Yea, it's still overexposed

asis80 05-20-2013 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 166666)
Yea, it's still overexposed

Still kinda backlit too. Dunno if you tried to pull shadows out to get yourself out of a backlit rejection or you increased overall exposure. Either way it worked, right?!

Ben

JimThias 05-20-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 166665)
Reason #47 to get rid of the High Sun and Backlit rejections and just call it Poor Lighting.

I agree. The rejection for his image is pretty inaccurate:

Quote:

- Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough light on the nose or visible sides of the subject.
First, the image is not backlit. In fact, the image is displaying one of the best sun angles for an entire scene.

Second, you can't get any better nose light than this.

Third, there are three visible "sides" of the subject: The nose, the top and the left side. Two of the three sides are lit as good as can be, and third side, which is visible the least, is shadowed. Thus, the two highly visible sides that are perfectly lit should trump that third side that has little emphasis on it.

That said, I agree that the exposure might be a little hot, but I also agree with Nikos that this is anything but high sun.

JRMDC 05-20-2013 12:35 PM

I never said it was necessarily high sun and in fact went to great lengths to say it was the light that was the problem. The original has a harsh look, typical of high sun shots but not limited to them. I find it (perhaps too) easy to make the comparison to a high sun shot to make clear what characteristics of the shot are at issue. Others pointed out that it may have been and may continue to be overexposure that is the limiting problem, and yes that can result in a harsh looking appearance.

High sun is not a technical issue, there is no rule against shooting when the sun is at a certain angle. Rather, high sun is a common source of a particular quality of light which is ugly; the term is used because of the high degree of correlation between time of day/year and image quality. There are other sources, as here.

bigbassloyd 05-20-2013 01:34 PM

Maybe one day RP will be cool enough to warrant updated and concise rejection reasons. Unfortunately, aircraft (and the people who photograph them) are paramount to trains.

I understood exactly what you meant J, if that's any consolation. Still, you should consider a yearly eye exam since you wear corrective lenses. ;)

Loyd L.

JRMDC 05-20-2013 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 166675)
I understood exactly what you meant J, if that's any consolation. Still, you should consider a yearly eye exam since you wear corrective lenses. ;)

Loyd L.

Maybe, Lloyd, it is bad glasses, or dislexia, since I keep seeing your name here as LoydL. I just straighten it up in my mind. :) :)

Missabefan 05-20-2013 01:42 PM

The rejection is not unique to the shot that started this thread.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...46&key=9465140

At first I had the same reaction as Nikos. Really?

I thought the light really couldn't get much better but the angle of the sun was right down the tracks so the viewable side was shadowed.
I too think it's screener roulette as there are shots accepted everyday with unlit/shadows on the visible sides or even the nose.

bigbassloyd 05-20-2013 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 166676)
Maybe, Lloyd, it is bad glasses, or dislexia, since I keep seeing your name here as LoydL. I just straighten it up in my mind. :) :)

It happens :)

Loyd SPACE L.

Joe the Photog 05-20-2013 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missabefan (Post 166677)
The rejection is not unique to the shot that started this thread.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...46&key=9465140

I'd say the light in Nikos' shot is better. We're all sitting around debating on whether the light is really bad or not when the real question pertains to how the RP admins want pictures on their site to look. Even though Nikos' shot got in, I can see why both his shot and your shot were rejected. It has nothing to do with whether the light is really bad or not.

troy12n 05-21-2013 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 166681)
I'd say the light in Nikos' shot is better. We're all sitting around debating on whether the light is really bad or not when the real question pertains to how the RP admins want pictures on their site to look. Even though Nikos' shot got in, I can see why both his shot and your shot were rejected. It has nothing to do with whether the light is really bad or not.

There's been quite a lot of poor lighting shots getting on in recent months. Quite a lot. However, they apparently like dark, cloudy bad lighting shots over shots like Nikos. It's their site I guess.

Freericks 05-21-2013 04:20 PM

Actually, I've seen some amazingly bad high sun get in of late too, stuff I'm not sure I would push the shutter on, let alone submit.

JRMDC 05-21-2013 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 166700)
Actually, I've seen some amazingly bad high sun get in of late too, stuff I'm not sure I would push the shutter on, let alone submit.

I suspect including, let it be said forthright, my shot!

[photoid=435166]

I was not sure if the composition or subject matter would warrant acceptance despite the harsh light, and would have not objected had it been rejected. Just as I don't object to the acceptance of Nikos' shot, although as a screener I would have kicked it out for harsh light. (As an admin, I might clarify the language in the rejection choices.)

As an uber-screener, of course, I would have written two paragraphs in the screener comments section explaining exactly why! Ha ha! No way!!!!!

JimThias 05-22-2013 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 166702)
I was not sure if the composition or subject matter would warrant acceptance despite the harsh light, and would have not objected had it been rejected. Just as I don't object to the acceptance of Nikos' shot, although as a screener I would have kicked it out for harsh light.

J, your shot is the perfect example of "harsh light." Nikos' shot is the perfect example of GREAT light.

I really don't understand how you can use "harsh" with his photo.

JRMDC 05-22-2013 03:22 AM

I don't think Nikos' original shot has "GREAT" light, in any way. "Acceptable" is viewpoint different than mine but sensible. "GREAT"? To quote from earlier in this thread, "really"?? :)

I find it too harsh, the redo a bit better, certainly not in the league of mine in terms of harshness, but my original reaction to it was "nice place - shoot over". One can certainly say that for mine, more so than his to be sure, and I do wish I could get up there to do so.

Aside from all that, "GREAT"? Really?

troy12n 05-22-2013 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 166711)
J, your shot is the perfect example of "harsh light." Nikos' shot is the perfect example of GREAT light.

I really don't understand how you can use "harsh" with his photo.

I dont think Niko's shot has great light at all. I think it's acceptable, but absolutely, positively not "great" light.

The light in J's shot is worse, but let's not make it out that Niko's shot is really great light.

milwman 05-22-2013 12:26 PM

Wrong side of the train is whats bad about the light, You dare show a shadow and you will get dinged for it.

troy12n 05-22-2013 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman (Post 166720)
Wrong side of the train is whats bad about the light, You dare show a shadow and you will get dinged for it.

There's lots of examples where that is not the case. Some are spectacular shots where you might be able to forgive it. Others are not.

milwman 05-22-2013 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 166721)
There's lots of examples where that is not the case. Some are spectacular shots where you might be able to forgive it. Others are not.

So true and I for one like dark side lit shots, I get them booted all the time :twisted:

JimThias 05-22-2013 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 166713)
I don't think Nikos' original shot has "GREAT" light, in any way. "Acceptable" is viewpoint different than mine but sensible. "GREAT"? To quote from earlier in this thread, "really"??

I find it too harsh, the redo a bit better, certainly not in the league of mine in terms of harshness, but my original reaction to it was "nice place - shoot over". One can certainly say that for mine, more so than his to be sure, and I do wish I could get up there to do so.

Aside from all that, "GREAT"? Really?

Yes, really.

6pm sun in the middle of May is harsh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, the lighting in his shot is GREAT. Look at the nose of the loco...it doesn't get much better than that.

His exposure & processing, on the other hand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 166718)
The light in J's shot is worse, but let's not make it out that Niko's shot is really great light.

6pm sunlight is not great any more? :lol:

JimThias 05-22-2013 07:03 PM

As a follow up, the sun set in Saint Louis on May 14th at 8:05 pm. The sun rose on that day at 5:50 am. If the sun angle in Saint Louis is harsh two hours before sunset, that means it's also harsh at 7:50am. I guess the window of opportunity for shooting in great light in Saint Louis is basically one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening.

I think you guys are confusing his exposure and processing with the actual lighting at the time. Two hours before sunset (or after sunrise) is a GREAT time of the day to shoot when it's sunny.

troy12n 05-22-2013 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 166726)
Yes, really.

6pm sun in the middle of May is harsh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe up in the still frozen region of Michigan where you live, but down here in the "dirty south", it's been summer for a couple months, including light.

JRMDC 05-22-2013 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 166727)
I think you guys are confusing his exposure and processing with the actual lighting at the time. Two hours before sunset (or after sunrise) is a GREAT time of the day to shoot when it's sunny.

All I have to go on is what I see, in particular before someone chimes in on a forum and tells me the time of day. I fully concede that it was Charles and not I that recognized the possibility of an alternate explanation, bad processing. The original was too harsh for my tastes (the follow-up only slightly improved, I would have made a stronger adjustment).

And perhaps I use superlatives differently than you do. If you are talking about light conditions that occur each and every day that is sunny, twice a day, well, I can't call that GREAT. Something like GREAT in all caps to me indicates special, unusual, particularly good. Not this situation.

But then I have a vague recollection that while you mind the Ps and Qs of grammar and like to go out of your way to ding someone on simple typos/misspellings, you are not that big into precise word usage. :) :) Could be wrong, maybe I'm thinking of someone else.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.