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 is gonna piss people off (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13342)

jdirelan87 01-10-2011 03:35 PM

This is gonna piss people off
 
[photoid=351147]

Despite checking the new posts, I still can't believe I'm the first to link this photo.... I must have missed a thread somewhere.

PS - for the record; I'm pretty neutral about the photo.

PSS - I'd be hard press to believe this one just slipped through the cracks.

Flowing 01-10-2011 03:47 PM

Straight from the site's photo guidelines:

"The purpose of our website is to display genuine, authentic photographs of trains and railroad related scenes. Bearing this in mind, digital manipulation of photographs (beyond standard post-processing techniques such as levelling, sharpening, dust removal, etc.) is not permitted on photographs submitted to RailPictures.Net."

I think the guidelines should be ammended if this is no longer the case. This site seems to be taking off in a different direction here lately.

PS - I am not attempting to call out the photographers or criticize the screeners; just making an observation. While I personally am not a fan of manipulated images, it's their site, etc.

troy12n 01-10-2011 03:51 PM

Not as much as this: [photoid=351073]

I actually dont have a problem with stuff like that at all if they come out and say it's ok. But to let 1 in (or like that one last week) every once in a while just promotes threads like this and dissatisfaction.

lock4244 01-10-2011 04:27 PM

Standards are applied differently depending on the photographer it would seem.

nikos1 01-10-2011 04:33 PM

I saw it, came so close to posting something about it, but then figured why bother, someone else will do it within a few hours lol. Atleast this is manipulation with no intent of hiding it, I'll take this over fake pan shots that STILL have not been removed....

bigbassloyd 01-10-2011 05:22 PM

There sure have been alot of illustrations uploaded lately, so I guess it's ok to do so now.

Loyd L.

milwman 01-10-2011 05:32 PM

Seen it and if thats what they want fine by me. But needs a sub heading ART.

John Ryan 01-10-2011 05:45 PM

Was there a thread on this one too?

[photoid=350736]

JimThias 01-10-2011 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Ryan (Post 128431)
Was there a thread on this one too?

[photoid=350736]

:lol: I knew I could depend on you. ;-)

Joe the Photog 01-10-2011 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 128419)
Not as much as this: [photoid=351073]

I actually dont have a problem with stuff like that at all if they come out and say it's ok. But to let 1 in (or like that one last week) every once in a while just promotes threads like this and dissatisfaction.

This is certainly rail related, in my opinion. I have zero problem with this shot in.

I may have reversed the color selection in the shot linked originally. And then posted it on my Flickr site.

Chase55671 01-10-2011 08:38 PM

I like the selective color photo. I really have no problems with the photoshopped material getting accepted as of lately, but I do have problems if they're only allowing this for certain contributors. Many have told me that it's pretty obvious that photoshopped material will get accepted, as long as the "wow" factor overpowers the photos technical flaws, per the RP guideline system.

While I suppose that's OK, I think proper mentioning of it needs to be made in the guidelines so there aren't any flame wars and I think this should apply to all contributors, too. Certainly not fair to only allow a select few to "push the limit' and the rest get dinged with overprocessed/digitally manipulated.

Infact, they should almost do away with the overprocessed/manipulated rejection, as it contradicts with the accepted material. Again, sure, if the occasional exception to that rejection prompts something to be accepted, it seems many try to follow to see if they, too, can "push the limit" of acceptable and unacceptable with the screeners.

It's almost like a photoshopped/manipulated version of the PEQ. It's a subjective rejection, that could be given if the screener is not "wowed" enough by your photo. If he doesn't like it, he has the overprocessed/manipulated rejection to fall back on.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it..

Chase

MTM9 01-10-2011 10:34 PM

The first thing I thought about when I got on tonight was when did the "guidelines" change because they obviously have again.

barnstormer 01-10-2011 11:15 PM

Wow I am amazed that these shots are getting on.

asis80 01-10-2011 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 128475)
I like the selective color photo. I really have no problems with the photoshopped material getting accepted as of lately, but I do have problems if they're only allowing this for certain contributors.

While I suppose that's OK, I think proper mentioning of it needs to be made in the guidelines so there aren't any flame wars and I think this should apply to all contributors, too. Certainly not fair to only allow a select few to "push the limit' and the rest get dinged with overprocessed/digitally manipulated.

Exactly, you said it perfectly. I'm not nuts about calling the site out on favoritism, but think. If you, I, or anyone else would submit that same exact shot in question, you know very well it wouldn't get through. Just those select few.



Quote:

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it..



Chase
No, keep reading.

Ben

bigbassloyd 01-10-2011 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Ryan (Post 128431)
Was there a thread on this one too?

[photoid=350736]

Yes, but not here.. :D

Loyd L.

sd9 01-11-2011 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdirelan87 (Post 128417)
[photoid=351147]

Despite checking the new posts, I still can't believe I'm the first to link this photo.... I must have missed a thread somewhere.

PS - for the record; I'm pretty neutral about the photo.

PSS - I'd be hard press to believe this one just slipped through the cracks.

I think it just got pulled:shock:

nikos1 01-11-2011 12:21 AM

Now can they pull the fake pan shot while they are at it? Or atleast let me turn every roster shot I take into a pan shot from now on for extra views.

Mgoldman 01-11-2011 12:46 AM

I would guess that John had the photo removed which is regrettable considering A) the image was creative and well executed and B) the issue at hand was not with John but rather admin in selectively bending the posted rules. Where is the logic in having admin pull only one such manipulated image among so many other recent examples which remain?

I welcome RP's acceptance of what promises to be a fascinating series of images that would otherwise be hard to find elsewhere, however, like my movie tastes, I prefer to keep fact and fiction separated.

Railimages.net, anyone?

/Mitch

barnstormer 01-11-2011 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9 (Post 128503)
I think it just got pulled:shock:

You are right. I noticed that as well.

PLEzero 01-11-2011 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 128506)
Now can they pull the fake pan shot while they are at it? Or atleast let me turn every roster shot I take into a pan shot from now on for extra views.

link?

(extra text)

stlgevo51 01-11-2011 01:14 AM

[photoid=324538]
I believe this is the photo in question. In fact, Adam even says it in the comments section.

JimThias 01-11-2011 01:15 AM

You know what's pissing me off? All the unlevel shots being accepted lately. WTF?

stlgevo51 01-11-2011 01:26 AM

Wow. It's gone! I posted the pan shot and walked away for a minute and when I came back it was gone! That was pretty darn quick if you ask me.

bigbassloyd 01-11-2011 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 128515)
You know what's pissing me off? All the unlevel shots being accepted lately. WTF?

well duh.. unlevel = artistic.. sheesh..

:D

Loyd L.

troy12n 01-11-2011 01:45 AM

So they pulled this one and left the piece of paper? WTF?

Like I said, this one had some merit, unlike the piece of paper.

JimThias 01-11-2011 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 128519)
So they pulled this one and left the piece of paper? WTF?

Like I said, this one had some merit, unlike the piece of paper.

Of course it's still there. The piece of paper is going to be a #1 PCA in a couple of weeks. :twisted:

troy12n 01-11-2011 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 128521)
Of course it's still there. The piece of paper is going to be a #1 PCA in a couple of weeks. :twisted:

All hail "the paper"!!

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...3&d=1294715099

cblaz 01-11-2011 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stlgevo51 (Post 128516)
Wow. It's gone! I posted the pan shot and walked away for a minute and when I came back it was gone! That was pretty darn quick if you ask me.

That wasn't the pan I was thinking of. Though I doubt the admin would ever admit to letting a faked shot become a PCA winner.

- Chris

JimThias 01-11-2011 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 128523)
All hail "the paper"!!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...es/roflmao.gif

JimThias 01-11-2011 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 128524)
That wasn't the pan I was thinking of.

Did you mean this faked pan?

[photoid=350554]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...es/explode.gif http://bestsmileys.com/falling/4.gif http://bestsmileys.com/eek/3.gif

troy12n 01-11-2011 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 128525)

Why not, we have several named photos:

The 3 points of light, the fake snow, the canoe, the fake dash 9, i'm sure we have others, now we have "the paper" ;-)

nikos1 01-11-2011 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 128527)

Are you having fun trying to level it?

JimThias 01-11-2011 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 128529)
Are you having fun trying to level it?

Already did. :lol:

http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/a...94149622-1.jpg

Mgoldman 01-11-2011 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 128528)
Why not, we have several named photos:

The 3 points of light, the fake snow, the canoe, the fake dash 9, i'm sure we have others, now we have "the paper" ;-)

Don't forget this crap:

[photoid=304262]

As for "the paper", it's a stretch but it's railroad related and does tell a story.
What I find inconsistent is that that got on, and more to the point, plaques have made it on yet a photo of a USA Rail Speed Record plaque from Hamilton NJ was rejected. Forget for a minute that photo was well composed and lit and look at the value of documenting in a visible place such as RP the official marker and actual record speed so often either unknown or misquoted. Dog gone it, I could go on.

/Mitch

Walter S 01-11-2011 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 128524)
That wasn't the pan I was thinking of. Though I doubt the admin would ever admit to letting a faked shot become a PCA winner.

- Chris

You mean the pan with the smoke plume showing no sign of blur?

cblaz 01-11-2011 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 128527)
Did you mean this faked pan?

[photoid=350554]

That one's not a PCA winner (yet). I was talking about Robin's other shot:

[photoid=349727]

Interestingly, the EXIF data on this shot, which was available when it was first posted (and showed a shutter speed of 1/500) has now conspicuously disappeared. The EXIF data on the shot Jim posted above is also not available, while the data is visible on all of Robin's other shots. Hmmmm.

I don't believe the admin have ever pulled a faked shot that won a PCA before, so it will be interesting to see what the response to this photo is.

- Chris

Walter S 01-11-2011 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 128534)
That one's not a PCA winner (yet). I was talking about Robin's other shot:

[photoid=349727]

Interestingly, the EXIF data on this shot, which was available when it was first posted (and showed a shutter speed of 1/500) has now conspicuously disappeared. The EXIF data on the shot Jim posted above is also not available, while the data is visible on all of Robin's other shots. Hmmmm.

I don't believe the admin have ever pulled a faked shot that won a PCA before, so it will be interesting to see what the response to this photo is.

- Chris

I enjoy looking at Robins work. I am however not a fan of taking the easy approach to producing an image such as this. It would be much better if he at least explained that it was indeed faked. He would regain more of my respect as a photographer if he did so.

Other than that, I think it should stay.

cblaz 01-11-2011 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S (Post 128535)
I enjoy looking at Robins work. I am however not a fan of taking the easy approach to producing an image such as this. It would be much better if he at least explained that it was indeed faked. He would regain more of my respect as a photographer if he did so.

Other than that, I think it should stay.

I enjoy Robin's work as well, but the admins have set a standard of not allowing faked pans or blurs. Usually, when one is discovered, it is quickly pulled. The fact that this has been allowed to stay while the EXIF data plainly showed it was faked makes it seem the admins are willing to "look the other way" if the shot brings in the views.

Plus, this undermines the work and skill that AB, Mitch and others (including you Walter) put into doing actual zoom pans and blurs, since it's so much easier to fake one.

- Chris

Mgoldman 01-11-2011 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 128536)
...makes it seem the admins are willing to "look the other way" if the shot brings in the views.
- Chris

Dog gone it, if that were the case, my avitar would be have made top of the day! I suppose it does not carry the weight of Craig's paper in the window as far as being railroad themed with a story behind it.

/Mitch

Walter S 01-11-2011 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 128536)
I enjoy Robin's work as well, but the admins have set a standard of not allowing faked pans or blurs. Usually, when one is discovered, it is quickly pulled. The fact that this has been allowed to stay while the EXIF data plainly showed it was faked makes it seem the admins are willing to "look the other way" if the shot brings in the views.

Plus, this undermines the work and skill that AB, Mitch and others (including you Walter) put into doing actual zoom pans and blurs, since it's so much easier to fake one.

- Chris

I agree with you there.


I guess what I am trying to say is the photographer needs to step up and say in the remarks the image has been digitally enhanced. Of course that would probably rarely happen.

Maybe add a digitally enhanced category?

I try to keep my work as true as possible. If I don't know how to do something, I don't fake it, I just work harder at producing the image.

I feel that when a photographer manipulates an image such as this and hides the fact, he looses some of his integrity.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 PM.

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