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)
-   -   Pick your own rejection reason! (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16949)

KevinM 02-26-2014 04:38 PM

Pick your own rejection reason!
 
Folks,

I don't post rejections here much. Most are legit and result in a better re-submit. In this case, I am scratching my head. It was originally rejected for a bad crop:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...46&key=8106144

OK, perhaps a bit loose, and I decided that the B/W sucked, so I went back to color:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...37&key=2906622

I guess I get to pick my own reason on this one. God, please do not tempt me like that! :twisted:

Any ideas? A little off the top, perhaps. If that's all it is, this screener is really nit-picking. Does the processing look off?

It's stuff like this that helps me better understand those who have decided to find other forums for their work.

Hatchetman 02-26-2014 06:32 PM

For the life of me I don't see why you guys go for this abuse.:lol:

BobE 02-26-2014 06:51 PM

Seems a strange coincidence that the three most recent forum threads are about bad cropping, but there were some 100 photos in the queue when I uploaded mine. Maybe it was a convenient way to clear the decks.

Kevin, nothing wrong with your photo. It could be cropped from the top, but not necessary. The color works better than the b/w. Almost looks like one of Howard Fogg's paintings.

jnohallman 02-26-2014 06:57 PM

Personally, I love the photo, but I'm wondering if the issue isn't the lighting. Specifically, the dreaded "not enough light on the nose" issue. But, as you said, who knows? When they don't give you a reason, all you can do is guess. Or appeal, claiming that since there was no reason given for the rejection, obviously it shouldn't have been rejected. There's always a chance they accidentally hit the wrong button.

Jon

KevinM 02-26-2014 07:08 PM

Hatch,

Quite a number of long-timers clearly don't "go for" it any more. You can probably list the names of the alumni better than I can. One of my personal friends who has been at this far longer than I recently threw in the towel. Don't know if we'll see him again.

It is irritating to spend an evening making an honest effort to cater to the all of the site's idiosyncrasies and address previous rejection reasons, only to have it kicked back without any reason at all. The nit-picking would be more understandable if it were really marginal shot, but I don't see it in that category. It's never going to be a To24, but is probably a hair more unique/interesting than the dozens of featureless diesel-wedges that are accepted every day.

If nothing else, it would be nice if they could fix the code so that reasonless rejections trigger some sort of alert for the screener.

<sigh>

KevinM 02-26-2014 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 176036)
Personally, I love the photo, but I'm wondering if the issue isn't the lighting. Specifically, the dreaded "not enough light on the nose" issue.
Jon

Hi Jon,

I could buy the nose-light concern if it weren't for the fact that there are thousands of photos in RP with no nose-light. Honestly, I think that rejection is mostly applied to shots of common power, which clearly is not the case here. Yes, the shot is side-lit, back-lit, but we're not talking a POW (Plain Old Wedgie) here. If this were a tree-tunnel wedge, I would never have bothered processing the frame, and certainly wouldn't have submitted it here.

I hope that it is at least a little bit obvious that I try to select interesting frames for display here. I may not always succeed in figuring out what the audience wants to see, but the effort is there. If the scenes don't have a beauty, most of them at least have a story. I have almost 90,000 frames on my computer. There are just over 1000 posted here, so you're seeing just a hair over 1% of what I shoot.

Harry Gaydosz 02-26-2014 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 176033)
Seems a strange coincidence that the three most recent forum threads are about bad cropping, but there were some 100 photos in the queue when I uploaded mine. Maybe it was a convenient way to clear the decks.

I don't even waste my time uploading when I see the queue is over 30.

MassArt Images 02-26-2014 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 176033)
Kevin, nothing wrong with your photo. It could be cropped from the top, but not necessary. The color works better than the b/w. Almost looks like one of Howard Fogg's paintings.

I second that about the color vs. B/W. They might not like the lack of nose light though if you want to nit-pick. Nice shot...BTW!

Trainman24210 02-26-2014 09:38 PM

I've learned to be very observant of when I post. I realize the screeners have only seconds to view these things and I try to avoid being upset but I see your point. The shot is great, regardless of light on the nose. If we applied those rules to the all those great old photographers their accolades would be far fewer. This is an attempt to re-create the feel of a historical shot and it does that perfectly.

Mgoldman 02-27-2014 02:19 AM

A snip off the bottom, a chunk off the top - put your RP glasses back on, lol.

I like the color version but it's oddly "tall". Crop monster food.

/Mitch

troy12n 02-27-2014 02:22 AM

If they dont want that shot on here, it's their loss...

Freericks 02-27-2014 02:54 AM

I love the color one, Kevin (nothing wrong with the B&W, but I love the color one).

appeal, based on you don't know why passed.

jnohallman 02-27-2014 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 176038)
Hi Jon,

I could buy the nose-light concern if it weren't for the fact that there are thousands of photos in RP with no nose-light. Honestly, I think that rejection is mostly applied to shots of common power, which clearly is not the case here. Yes, the shot is side-lit, back-lit, but we're not talking a POW (Plain Old Wedgie) here. If this were a tree-tunnel wedge, I would never have bothered processing the frame, and certainly wouldn't have submitted it here.

I hope that it is at least a little bit obvious that I try to select interesting frames for display here. I may not always succeed in figuring out what the audience wants to see, but the effort is there. If the scenes don't have a beauty, most of them at least have a story. I have almost 90,000 frames on my computer. There are just over 1000 posted here, so you're seeing just a hair over 1% of what I shoot.

I was just taking a wild guess, given that the screeners failed to give a reason. As I said, I love the photo, so I was trying to figure out what nitpicky reason they could possibly have. It is quite obvious that you select interesting photos for RP, with tremendous success. It makes me wish I could see some of the 99% that aren't posted here.

Jon

Holloran Grade 02-27-2014 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 176036)
......Specifically, the dreaded "not enough light on the nose" issue.

There is that issue and if this were something other than a tea kettle special, you would be dead in the water.

Try cutting some off the left, seems to be a bit more space than they like, and the color version looks better just because of the light. The B&W is fine too.

Remember, this is what they want:

[photoid=463760]

Nice sunny, nose lit wedgies like this.



Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 176033)
......... Maybe it was a convenient way to clear the decks.

I think it is the new "catch all" rejection.

* * * * *

As for the second rejection - perhaps the same screener was perturbed that you would submit the same image in a different format with the same cropping issue.

Hatchetman 02-27-2014 02:15 PM

try a standard 5x7 crop.

KevinM 02-27-2014 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman (Post 176074)
try a standard 5x7 crop.

Yes, that is essentially what I did. I cropped as close as I could without taking most of the scenery out of the frame. If they had rejected it again, I probably would have just put it aside. To go any tighter would have been pointless.

[photoid=471492]

Hatchetman 02-27-2014 03:49 PM

way to get with the program Kev!

KevinM 02-27-2014 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman (Post 176078)
way to get with the program Kev!

LOL! Conform or die, I guess.

The bad thing about showing rejections here in the forums is that everyone gets to see the shot. By the time you finally get it past the screeners......everyone is tired of it. :cry:

wds 02-27-2014 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 176077)
Yes, that is essentially what I did. I cropped as close as I could without taking most of the scenery out of the frame. If they had rejected it again, I probably would have just put it aside. To go any tighter would have been pointless.

[photoid=471492]

I too thought the first two versions were just fine, but now having seen the accepted version I do prefer it, and looking back at the others for comparison I now feel just a tad "visually uncomfortable" with them. Maybe they <b>do</b> know what they're talking about after all? Uh, well, uh... okay I won't go there! :twisted:

troy12n 02-27-2014 09:11 PM

You are todays winner of screener roulette!

Congrats!


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 AM.

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