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)
-   -   Station interior rejection (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17888)

Heymon 02-23-2017 02:20 PM

Station interior rejection
 
So I have had several station interior shots accepted in the past, but it seems like those might be falling out of favor (doubtful) or my shot is deficient in some way.

This was rejected on poor aesthetics, but is not much different than others I have gotten in so just want some feedback.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...28&key=7495934

Thanks,
Andre

bigbassloyd 02-23-2017 03:51 PM

There's not a whole lot of supporting detail within the shot that says "Railroad" to me, and I've been there many times. It's a little dark, and the cutoff person in the foreground is distracting to me as well. The distortion needs addressed too.

I can see it being rejected for both aesthetic and technical reasons.

Loyd L.

miningcamper1 02-23-2017 05:25 PM

Lack of RR content didn't hurt this one. :confused: [photoid=587047]

bigbassloyd 02-24-2017 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 190724)
Lack of RR content didn't hurt this one. :confused: [photoid=587047]

One bad decision doesn't deserve another.

Loyd L.

KevinM 02-24-2017 03:31 AM

A few observations:

- The Donnelly shot is brighter.

- The Donnelly image has some symmetry to it....the arches are centered. That's the biggest plus in my opinion. The off-center arches in the rejected shot are just driving me nuts....and I'm not even an artsy-fartsy type.

- The Donnelly shot doesn't have the distracting, shadowy figure of a person in the foreground who is cut off just below the waist.

All of that stuff really differentiates the accepted shot. Just my $.02. :smile:

Heymon 02-24-2017 04:57 AM

Well, I think Mr. Donnelly covered it! Funny, I did a search trying to find out if anyone had done interiors of that station and did not find any using the search terms I thought would apply (Union Station), which I thought was odd. Anyway, my shot was at night, hence darker, but still its too similar to Matt's to be worth pursuing. I took a bunch of other interior shots there, maybe I'll find one a bit different to try.

I disagree that there has to be a train for an interior shot to work. Look at all the shots of Grand Central. I do agree that the passenger could be a bit distracting, though I judged her to be part of the scene. The rejection reason is clearly inconsistent, but not going to worry about that. If they wanted to reject for unlevel or something in that vein I could see it, (it is a bit unlevel I notice now but I am not seeing the assymetry).

I appreciate the feedback.

Andre

miningcamper1 02-24-2017 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heymon (Post 190727)
Well, I think Mr. Donnelly covered it! Funny, I did a search trying to find out if anyone had done interiors of that station and did not find any using the search terms I thought would apply (Union Station), which I thought was odd.

The RP search box can be very finicky :roll: at times, but "Washington Union Station" did the trick.

FWIW, I like the colors in the arches better in yours. 8-)

KevinM 02-24-2017 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heymon (Post 190727)
If they wanted to reject for unlevel or something in that vein I could see it, (it is a bit unlevel I notice now but I am not seeing the assymetry).

I appreciate the feedback.

Andre

Hi Andre,

I would disregard my comment about the symmetry issue. I was looking at it under a slightly higher magnification last night and saw something I didn't like. I don't see that as I view it now, although I do agree it is not quite level. Honestly, I think the darkness and the cut-off figure are the issues. If you had someone dart into the picture, did you not shoot another frame or two after she cleared the edge of the frame? I probably would have just deleted this frame in-camera and shot a few more when the scene was a bit cleaner.

Mberry 02-24-2017 04:04 PM

Station shots are tough to get on..... I managed to get this one on, somewhat surprisingly. In hindsight I'm not sure the B&W edit works that well.

[photoid=496419]

JRMDC 02-24-2017 04:57 PM

As with many things RP, there seems little rhyme/reason why some shots get in and others don't. In this case, though, the half-person definitely detracts from the shot.

This one got on, somehow, years ago

[photoid=361809]

At the time I found the many ads in the station for Jet Blue amusing.

Heymon 02-25-2017 11:24 PM

If the half person was the problem I think the rejection would have been for foreground obstruction or something "fixable" (as in, "If that wasn't there it would be good"). I have basically viewed the Poor Aesthetic Quality rejection as unfixable. I have another shot so I may as well test the theory with your suggestions in mind and see what happens.

Andre

Heymon 02-26-2017 04:29 AM

As I suspected, the PAQ rejection is terminal:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...61&key=3352344

Still, I think it is a strange rejection since it is an accurate depiction of the station, and I don't think there are any glaring faults in the photo this time.

Andre

John West 02-26-2017 05:08 AM

1 Attachment(s)
In my view it cries out for perspective correction and some color balance change (have no idea what the real thing looks like). The attached is a quick and dirty idea of what I think looks a bit better. If the original allows it I would try to get the whole first arch in and crop out some of the floor in the foreground. But this is just me.

ATSF666 02-26-2017 05:19 AM

My guess is it who is reviewing the photo. I have some station shots on, and some that have been rejected for the same reason. No rhyme or reason, but that is the way of RP for better or worse.

KevinM 02-26-2017 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John West (Post 190735)
In my view it cries out for perspective correction and some color balance change (have no idea what the real thing looks like). The attached is a quick and dirty idea of what I think looks a bit better. If the original allows it I would try to get the whole first arch in and crop out some of the floor in the foreground. But this is just me.

Not just you John.... When an image has strong perspective issues, I also like to see at least some attempt at correction. Granted, in most cases, it means you'll lose part of the image, but it's just not pleasing to my eye to have so many elements of a photo leaning so heavily. I like this submission better than the original, but I would still do some perspective correction and I would bring up the shadows quite a bit. I still believe that human eyes would see this scene brighter than the photo.

In the end, it may not matter what you do with it. As others have noted, it is all in the eyes of the screener you get. As for the "pass" on the Matt Donnelly image....well.....he's Matt Donnelly and I believe he shoots for Amtrak. You can read into that whatever you like, I guess.

troy12n 02-26-2017 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 190725)
One bad decision doesn't deserve another.

Loyd L.

Also, legit, that submitter gets mad leeway on his submittals, he's the king of blown out skies. I'm not a fan of these type shots.

Heymon 02-26-2017 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 190737)
Not just you John.... When an image has strong perspective issues, I also like to see at least some attempt at correction. Granted, in most cases, it means you'll lose part of the image, but it's just not pleasing to my eye to have so many elements of a photo leaning so heavily. I like this submission better than the original, but I would still do some perspective correction and I would bring up the shadows quite a bit. I still believe that human eyes would see this scene brighter than the photo.

In the end, it may not matter what you do with it. As others have noted, it is all in the eyes of the screener you get. As for the "pass" on the Matt Donnelly image....well.....he's Matt Donnelly and I believe he shoots for Amtrak. You can read into that whatever you like, I guess.

In looking at the Donnelly version that was accepted, it is leaning equally to my rejections. I think that just about all of my station interiors have that type of wide-angle distortion. As you know, correcting the perspective cures the lean but costs detail so I tend not to do it. I realize that it bothers some people, but I think many tend to look past it when it comes to these types of shots (and the prevalence of such shots being accepted supports that).

In that vein, I am beginning to cry foul a bit based on an examination of his accepted shots and my own. Perspective distortion is not the issue, I don't think. Neither is "poor aesthetics". That would mean the shot is grossly deficient or not "railroady" enough. It is entirely possible the screener doesn't like these types of shots, but then the screener is inconsistent with the site specifications. There are a number of "styles" I don't like, but I would accept them based on the parameters of the site regardless of my personal preferences. If my shot were distorted too much, the screener should know about perspective correction and rejected it for distortion. If it was too dark, they could say something about that. But to say poor aesthetics is perplexing. I was joking to myself that maybe Donnelly is a screener and doesn't want competition, but maybe the screener is his friend. :twisted:

Andre

PS The station was quite dark, actually. My shot was at ISO 2500 f4.3 and I brightened it a bit after that. It is a reasonably accurate rendition as far as I recall. But I can go brighter if that's what it takes...

John West 02-26-2017 11:27 PM

I think Janusz covered it pretty well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 190731)
As with many things RP, there seems little rhyme/reason why some shots get in and others don't.


KevinM 02-27-2017 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heymon (Post 190739)
I was joking to myself that maybe Donnelly is a screener and doesn't want competition, but maybe the screener is his friend. :twisted:

Andre

No, Donnelly isn't a screener, but the RP folks clearly have "arrangements" with some of the various railroad company Photographers such as Matt Donnelly, Kevin Burkholder and Casey Thomason.

troy12n 02-27-2017 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 190741)
No, Donnelly isn't a screener, but the RP folks clearly have "arrangements" with some of the various railroad company Photographers such as Matt Donnelly, Kevin Burkholder and Casey Thomason.

Oh, I didn't know he was a company photographer, that explains it. Different set of rules, gotcha!

RobJor 02-27-2017 02:56 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Another station fail.

I only submit once in a while but saw this thread so just for curiosity.???

Clearly railroad related, typical "old time" Station with "new time" travelers I thought was OK.

Of note, only one customer watching the station TV.

Corrected for exposure rejection. Corrected for Hue. Then the final rejection.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...69&key=9988071

Bob Jordan

miningcamper1 02-27-2017 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 190743)
Another station fail.

I only submit once in a while but saw this thread so just for curiosity.???

Clearly railroad related, typical "old time" Station with "new time" travelers I thought was OK.

Of note, only one customer watching the station TV.

Corrected for exposure rejection. Corrected for Hue. Then the final rejection.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...69&key=9988071

Bob Jordan

Quite a visual statement about our modern times. Ultra-casual dress, eyes glued to smartphones...:roll::shock::confused:

JimThias 02-28-2017 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 190744)
Quite a visual statement about our modern times. Ultra-casual dress, eyes glued to smartphones...:roll::shock::confused:

Been in an airport lately? :lol:

SAR Connecta 02-28-2017 02:41 AM

2 Attachment(s)
What a pity Rob, love the photo / scene - vintage ticket kiosk, clock and benches! I have two "railway" clocks in my little private South African Railway museum.

RobJor 03-03-2017 12:28 AM

[photoid=608629]

Ok, John, try to "fix" this one.!!! Smile

Bob


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 PM.

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