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)
-   -   Appeal? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16534)

Jeff Terry 07-21-2013 04:17 PM

Appeal?
 
I have to admit, I'm surprised at this rejection. Thought I had a winner. Should I appeal or just let it go?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...28&key=1906857

Mgoldman 07-21-2013 04:38 PM

I'll have to check the "About Us" page - is Margaret Whitton, aka Rachel Phelps from the movie "Major League" the new head screener?

She purposely made life miserable for the baseball team she inherited after her husband's death with the goal of dissolving the team so she could move on to better things.

I think RP is in self destruct mode...

/Mitch


PS - Great shot, Jeff!
The logic behind the rejection is "Jyussssst a bit outside" of my understanding.

Mgoldman 07-21-2013 05:00 PM

1 Attachment(s)
That's gotta be frustrating considering this cloudy day shot from a while back:

[photoid=438707]

But perhaps not as annoying as seeing this image accepted right after yours was rejected:

[photoid=444185]

Attachment 8135


BTW - My only point in bringing this up is to try to get admin to see these issues from another point of view. You can't fix a problem if you don't understand or even know (or believe) it is perceived to exist.

Ie; Jeff's shot is not worthy, but Chris's overcast common equipment shot is and /or, my shot was just rejected yet this one screened by the same screener was found to be within the boundaries of what we like to see accepted on RP.

Of course, another way to look at it is on it's own merits alone. In that respect, it's 1 of only 4 photos of this engine (where as Chris's SW-1500, btw, is one of only 1,895), it's a skillfully captured pan (rods down, no less), and not only is there blue sky in the shot, but there's a sheen on the metal parts indicating the subject had light on it. I think I have a similar pan with Arcade and Attica #18 that did get accdepted (and PC'd).

And SC'd, no less:

[photoid=255401]

Perhaps this could be perceived as a mistake and would not have been acceptable today? :confused:

/Mitch

KevinM 07-22-2013 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Terry (Post 168435)
I have to admit, I'm surprised at this rejection. Thought I had a winner. Should I appeal or just let it go?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...28&key=1906857


Jeff,

There are PLENTY of shots on RP that have lighting far worse than that. In fact, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. You did fine.

Depending on your level of patience, you could either appeal or just hold it for a while. I swear that there's at least one screener who is making decisions with a dart board.

Mgoldman 07-22-2013 02:44 AM

Kevin stole my "/", lol.

/Mitch

Jeff Terry 07-22-2013 02:28 PM

Thanks for the advice, guys! I wanted to make sure that there wasn't something wrong that I was overlooking. I'll decide if I want to appeal or do some tweaking and resubmit.

Jeff Terry

Hatchetman 07-22-2013 02:38 PM

You could brighten that up a bit in processing...a little more exposure, adjust levels, maybe a little more temperature. Play with it and resubmit.

Mgoldman 07-22-2013 06:32 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman (Post 168500)
You could brighten that up a bit in processing...a little more exposure, adjust levels, maybe a little more temperature. Play with it and resubmit.

Yeah... there's always that option.

Anytime I get an "underexposed" or "too dark" rejection, I simply brighten, usually through shadows and highlights.

Granted it probably didn't look like this but sometimes it's more about looks then reality. Overall, I think it's more pleasing as well. It looks closer to reality then other modifications recently accepted, too.

Shadows and highlights... warmed up a bit and then the ever so popular but tastefully done vignette. Sorry, you can't tell it's there - but that's what makes it so effective.

"Brighten this up to make it pop" - that would be a welcome rejection statement.

/Mitch

Attachment 8138

Sean Mathews 07-22-2013 06:48 PM

If that wasn't accepted, I might as well just give up on trying my stuff at all.

Seriously.

I think they were probably leaning towards the common power aspect as opposed to the cloudy day/common angle. :p

Jeff Terry 07-22-2013 07:08 PM

Took the advice Mitch gave and resubmitted.

Thanks again!

KevinM 07-22-2013 08:06 PM

I personally didn't think that the original version needed any brightening at all. I would have been proud to have that shot in my collection as-is. It appears as if you shot into that grove of trees to take the white sky out of the mix, so you could expose for the subject....and you did it well. It doesn't need to glow in the dark.

Historically, RP has not enforced the "cloudy/common" rule on steam engines. In fact, they don't always enforce it on diesels either. Perhaps they are training a new screener, who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the words steam and "common" in the same sentence. Certainly, if the screener was familiar with this particular locomotive, he'd know there is absolutely nothing common about it.

davecrosby 07-22-2013 08:32 PM

Wow, that shot got rejected, but these get on?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=439408&nseq=5

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...438718&nseq=13

CSX1702 07-22-2013 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecrosby (Post 168517)
Wow, that shot got rejected, but these get on?

Welcome to RailPics. :twisted:

MassArt Images 07-22-2013 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 168436)

PS - Great shot, Jeff!
The logic behind the rejection is "Jyussssst a bit outside" of my understanding.

Mitch just likes it because the rods are down:wink:

I am dumbfounded also...that is an awesome shot !

An appeal with some of the examples Mitch showed should get it in but the whole issue is: why should you have to go to all the trouble?

This is known as a "Debbie Downer"

Jeff Terry 07-22-2013 11:02 PM

Accepted on the second time around. Thanks for the advice.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=444322&nseq=5

willig 07-23-2013 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Terry (Post 168526)
Accepted on the second time around. Thanks for the advice.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=444322&nseq=5

I should think so too. This is a great shot that should have been accepted first time. A real quality pan.

Sean Mathews 07-23-2013 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecrosby (Post 168517)

Ahhhhh. Maybe the key to this whole site is having a snazzy watermark/signature and copyright.

JMC 07-23-2013 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Mathews (Post 168539)
Ahhhhh. Maybe the key to this whole site is having a snazzy watermark/signature and copyright.

Sean I think you've nailed it. I'm crafting mine as I type this...:lol:

Sean Mathews 07-23-2013 05:51 PM

Honestly, I think the screeners are much like vegas slot machines. Some are much more loose than others, while some don't want to pay out regardless of how much you put in.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 PM.

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