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)
-   -   This must be a joke! (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5915)

crazyro 09-28-2007 02:10 PM

This must be a joke!
 
http://www.railpictures.net/images/i....jpg.34750.jpg

Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.

Do what? I know this may get me kicked out, which is fine, as it's getting to the point of really being stupid, but come on! Backlit? Not enough light on the nose? The sun was shining RIGHT on the nose of the loco. Look at the shadow. This is really dumb. :roll:

This is a "backlit" (as they call it) shot, with not enough light on the nose: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=203696

Sheesh!

bigbassloyd 09-28-2007 02:24 PM

Since they don't have a rejection called "the entire side of the train you see in the photograph is shadowed"

anywho, I feel that the rejection of the photo itself was correct, you should have been on the opposite side of the tracks and took the shot, and this wouldn't have been an issue.

Loyd L.

JRMDC 09-28-2007 02:25 PM

I do wish they would amend the "backlit" language to include sidelit or otherwise make it clearer in the phrasing that the problem is no light on an important part of the subject, whether it be the nose of the subject or some other part. "Backlit" refers to the light being on the backside of the subject, compared to the photographer, as in opposite side, not as in the back/rear of the train necessarily.

In your shot the nose is of course well lit, but you are on the wrong side of the train as the side seen is entirely in shadow. As it is a common wedgie of a common train, it gets rejected.

It can be irritating if the reason stated is poorly worded, so I feel your pain :), but your shot is not lit appropriately for RP, in my view.

PLEzero 09-28-2007 02:30 PM

The nose light is pretty good but the side of the train is in shadow. It also looks soft. If the image or content was a bit more interesting some of these criteria may be over looked. However, it is a 3/4 wedge of Amtrak. Sorry, try again.

crazyro 09-28-2007 02:35 PM

Hey, I'll be the first one to admit that this is not the most thrilling shot. If anything, it is, as PLEzero mentioned, just another Amtrak shot. I think what truly bothered me and bugged me and seemed dumb was the whole "not enough light on the nose" comment. If it would've said - not enough light on the side of the train, I think I would've just moved on...

JRMDC 09-28-2007 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
Hey, I'll be the first one to admit that this is not the most thrilling shot. If anything, it is, as PLEzero mentioned, just another Amtrak shot. I think what truly bothered me and bugged me and seemed dumb was the whole "not enough light on the nose" comment. If it would've said - not enough light on the side of the train, I think I would've just moved on...

Well, it does say "Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit OR doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject."

So the first clause applies to your shot, not the second. :)

Crusader 09-28-2007 03:41 PM

Ah, the old SST (Shady Side of the Train). Yeh, this'll get ya the boot almost every time.

crazyro 09-28-2007 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Well, it does say "Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit OR doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject."

So the first clause applies to your shot, not the second. :)

Well, it's really not backlit either. :) It's just bad side lit. ;)

Ween 09-28-2007 04:55 PM

No, it's backlit.

From left-to-right it's you, train, sun. The train is between you and the sun: backlit. You can argue the semantics all you want, but it's got a flaw that's typically not accepted at RP...

NSFan14 09-28-2007 05:14 PM

Here is a thing about railpictures.net If they reject your photo then go on with life. Dont get mad cause they rejected cause its "BACKLIT". Railpictures.net does their best to keep this site up and im sure all they need is someone to get mad cause they rejected their photo cause its "BACKLIT". My photography sucks so bad I dont have a picture on the database yet but hey who cares! I enjoy takin photos of trains and if its rejected oh well I still had fun while taking the picture.

JimThias 09-28-2007 06:54 PM

I love it when a rejectee (haha) presents an image for comparison and the rejected image has NO business being compared to the one in the database.

:roll:

Mike B. 09-28-2007 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
I love it when a rejectee (haha) presents an image for comparison and the rejected image has NO business being compared to the one in the database.

:roll:

Well, he didn't take the photo of the GCRY 29, so his photo is automatically better.

crazyro 09-28-2007 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B.
Well, he didn't take the photo of the GCRY 29, so his photo is automatically better.

Never said that. My point was that my rejection was based on not enough light on the nose (as I saw it). Comparing nose to nose, not photo to photo. Sheesh!

JimThias 09-28-2007 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
Never said that. My point was that my rejection was based on not enough light on the nose (as I saw it). Comparing nose to nose, not photo to photo. Sheesh!

And my point was, if you ever feeled compelled to compare your rejected photo to another image, make sure it's comparative. When a shot or power is unique, factors like lighting are taken less into consideration. So it's probably not a good idea to compare your common grade crossing Amtrak wedgie to a photo of a classic steam engine.

JRMDC 09-28-2007 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
And my point was, if you ever feeled compelled to compare your rejected photo to another image, make sure it's comparative. When a shot or power is unique, factors light lighting are taken less into consideration. So it's probably not a good idea to compare your common grade crossing Amtrak wedgie to a photo of a classic steam engine.

And the comparison photo had completely different lighting, as the train side was well lit and the nose not, completely opposite that of the Amtrak shot. Had you found an accepted shot with similar light to your rejected shot, or one with equivalent lack of side light to yours but with no nose light also, that would have made more sense given your complaint. The bigger picture, of course, is that the reasons are not iron clad rules and will be overlooked if a picture is just plain darn good!

But perhaps this discussion has gone into the unproductive zone, as can occasionally happen on the internet! :)

crazyro 09-28-2007 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
And my point was, if you ever feeled compelled to compare your rejected photo to another image, make sure it's comparative. When a shot or power is unique, factors like lighting are taken less into consideration. So it's probably not a good idea to compare your common grade crossing Amtrak wedgie to a photo of a classic steam engine.

Totally understand the point. But, again, please understand where I'm coming from. The rejection given was "not enough light on the nose." So, all I did was quickly find a photo that fit THAT rejection point. If the rejection given would've been: "Boring Amtrak shot, with no side light" then I would've understood. Maybe the screeners would want to reconsider rewriting some of these. I don't know. My beef was not with the rejection. I can live with that. Have had many rejected, have had many accepted. What seemed stupid to me was the reason given. Not the fact that the shot was rejected.

Anyway, moving on...

JimThias 09-28-2007 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
Totally understand the point. But, again, please understand where I'm coming from. The rejection given was "not enough light on the nose." So, all I did was quickly find a photo that fit THAT rejection point. If the rejection given would've been: "Boring Amtrak shot, with no side light" then I would've understood. Maybe the screeners would want to reconsider rewriting some of these. I don't know. My beef was not with the rejection. I can live with that. Have had many rejected, have had many accepted. What seemed stupid to me was the reason given. Not the fact that the shot was rejected.

Anyway, moving on...

You're obviously suffering from some kind of reading comprehension weakness or something.

Go back up and read post #6 again. The rejection was NOT for not enough light on the nose. Here, let me quote the rejection once again:

Quote:

Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.
Do you see that "or" in the sentence? There are TWO possible reasons for a rejection that are lighting RELATED. One is backlit, the other is not enough light on the nose. I think what you're failing to do is get BEYOND the fact that "nose light" was mentinoed in the same sentence, even though it did NOT apply to your image. The FACT is, the image in your photo is BACKLIT, so that rejection stands just as stated. How can that be "stupid?" It just so happens to be that MANY backlit trains also suffer from not enough nose light, so THAT is most likely why both of those rejections fall into one. But the simple placement of the word "or" means it could be one of the reasons implied, but not necessarily both.

Get it now? If not, perhaps this will help:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/or

Mike B. 09-28-2007 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
What seemed stupid to me was the reason given. Not the fact that the shot was rejected.

Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.

Seems like an adequate description to me. If you're having trouble with this, notice the word "or" is there.

fanie 09-28-2007 08:34 PM

Hi all
Hope you dont mind asking here rather than start a new thread, what do you guys think of this one, was also rejected for backlit but since the pic is showing a bit more than just another wedgie i thought they might look past that.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=505366113

cheers
Fanie

JRMDC 09-28-2007 08:36 PM

Hey Jim and Mike! I want credit, I was the FIRST to point out the important "OR" way back in post #6!!!! :-P

I suppose I should have added something like "emphasis added" to my post then, instead of just using the caps. :)

crazyro 09-28-2007 08:41 PM

Ok, maybe my definition of "backlit" is wrong. I dunno. Poor light - I go with it. But backlit was not.

I apologize for the grief caused.

Mike B. 09-28-2007 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
I dunno. Poor light - I go with it. But backlit was not.

What does that mean? Are you saying your photo isn't backlit? :confused:

crazyro 09-28-2007 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B.
What does that mean? Are you saying your photo isn't backlit? :confused:

Backlit - light source behind the subject. In this case, it was above and in the front.

Mike B. 09-28-2007 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
Backlit - light source behind the subject. In this case, it was above and in the front.

I sure hope I never shoot a train when the sun is below the train. That would cause some problems!

JRMDC 09-28-2007 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyro
Ok, maybe my definition of "backlit" is wrong. I dunno. Poor light - I go with it. But backlit was not.

I apologize for the grief caused.

To me, "backlit" means that an important portion of the scene does not have light on it. So one should apply a very liberal interpretation of "back" which goes way beyond "light coming directly at the camera from being the subject" and allows for different angles of light. An important part of your shot is in shadow. The rest is semantics.

As for the grief, I guess everyone is wondering why your strong response, when from our perspective the shot obviously does not meet RP standards. You erroneously fixated on a word and interpreted it narrowly. And then everyone piles on... (including me!)


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.