Expanding our Community

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

I am more with Blair here.

I do see the unlevel and maybe that takes away from my view of the shot but it's not a deal breaker for me. For Jim it is for it's well known how sensitive he is to this issue.

It's a deal breaker for me as well. Why let something go, when it's an easy fix?

I do not see Loyd's issue with shake at all. Maybe its not the razor sharp it could of been but "lots of shake" I simply do not see.

That was Sean up there. I agree that it's certainly there, and most likely due to the train virbration and or wind.

I'll also go on record of saying that artistic-esqe shots (Not specifically this one, but a generalized idea) getting a pass on technical issues because they are artistic-esqe is crap. I'm sure the majority will not agree, and that's fine.

Loyd L.

[wds]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I'll also go on record of saying that artistic-esqe shots (Not specifically this one, but a generalized idea) getting a pass on technical issues because they are artistic-esqe is crap. I'm sure the majority will not agree, and that's fine.

Loyd L.

Well, I for one am most certainly with you on this one Loyd!

[blair kooistra]

I didn't see the unlevel in this shot until it was mentioned. It might be an issue with me if it's the traditional sunny day wedge; with something a bit more free-form, processed edgier, I'll cut the photographer a bit of slack and consider it part of his composition. I guess I wasn't raised looking so stringently and dogmatically at photographs having to be "this" or "that" to be successful. But some people are a bit more OCD!

[bigbassloyd]

Or some people care more about the product they present, and wish it were mutual?

I guess it truly doesn't matter, because you're only as good as people say you are. And the masses have spoken regarding the image.

Loyd L.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I'll also go on record of saying that artistic-esqe shots (Not specifically this one, but a generalized idea) getting a pass on technical issues because they are artistic-esqe is crap. I'm sure the majority will not agree, and that's fine.

Loyd L.

So any shot that does not adhere to absolute perfection technically is worthless then?

I guess we can throw out about oh 80% of all the greatest photos ever taken.

Like this one?

http://www.railroadheritage.org/inde...&FI=28&ID=4527

Too dark, bad angle, blurry, unlevel, etc, etc,.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

So any shot that does not adhere to absolute perfection technically is worthless then?

Any good shot that does not adhere to perfection technically is not worthless. To the contrary, it's worth fixing (when possible). The issue with RP is that they seem to sporadically require absolute perfection (0.00002 degrees unlevel, ect) and at times, they do not take into consideration the odds of what it takes , or ever seeing a "10" in the database when they reject a "7" or an "8", or even a "9". I've never had much issue with rejects for technical issues. Instead, it seems to be the ones that stray from textbook in crop, composition or subject.

Say for instance you have a recent photo of a PRR S1 buried in a quarry accessible by a mine shaft but the image you took was either too dark to fix, blurry or had a foreground obstruction.

Getting back to the thread topic - "Expanding our community", most problems could be rectified by simply injecting some courtesy and extra tolerance, not on the first screening, but the appeals. Would be nice if comments to the screener were acknowledged, too.

I'll leave the topic of the value of RP as a database of photographers, vs photography, for another time.

/Mitch

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by blair kooistra

I didn't see the unlevel in this shot until it was mentioned. It might be an issue with me if it's the traditional sunny day wedge; with something a bit more free-form, processed edgier, I'll cut the photographer a bit of slack and consider it part of his composition. I guess I wasn't raised looking so stringently and dogmatically at photographs having to be "this" or "that" to be successful. But some people are a bit more OCD!

Some of us are, but sometimes the screeners are more OCD...and then they let something like this, which is glaringly unlevel, slide by. There needs to be some consistency with the technical aspects of photos during the screening process.


And this has nothing to do with being raised any certain way. Some people just see unlevel a lot easier than others.

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

So any shot that does not adhere to absolute perfection technically is worthless then?

Of course it's not worthless. But people shouldn't make up excuses as to why it shouldn't be fixed (or at least not acknowledge that is has a technical and fixable flaw). This isn't an either/or issue.

Level, resubmit, boom goes the dynamite!

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

So any shot that does not adhere to absolute perfection technically is worthless then?

No, but for F--KS sake this is two thousand and fifteen. People run around with multi-thousand dollar easy buttons on their neck and a suite of software to match that can do everything for a photographer but wipe his/her a**. If you're submitting a shot taken within the last several years, there's zero excuse to not fix a technical issue such as a shot being un-level. If you can't tell if an image is level or not; learn. *You learned to use your easy button, and *you learned how to cook the curves in photoshop to make it all pretty, so learn to level an image.

*generalized you to represent photographers as a group

If a dumba** from Southern West Virginia can figure these things out, I figure the rest of the educated world will have no issue.

/endrant
/yeehaw

Loyd L.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

If a dumba** from Southern West Virginia can figure these things out, I figure the rest of the educated world will have no issue.

Loyd L.

Hey now, Chuck Yeager hails from WV and he "ain't" no dumb***. Also Mylan Puskar, and Robert C. Byrd former Senate Majority leader and top officer (Exalted Cyclops) and founder of the states Ku Klux Klan just to name a few.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Oh, I agree. Now it's easy so why not do it.

It's not like in the days of film and steam when just getting a good image or over the line was a miracle.

It's just that old film guys like me are less critical 'bout the .00001 unlevel stuff.

(Where's the .gif of beating a dead horse when you need it?

Luv ya Loyd!

Smart**s from New York City.

[RobJor]

I am pretty new and got really upset at the start and still disagree a lot about screening but try to adapt. I often get flagged for my night shots of existing light moving trains as I think more leeway could be extended for this niche. I tried to submit one from a year ago and it was rejected. I had the luxury of a redo and went back as a challenge and got this one accepted, the train was going about 15mph so it worked but any faster??????.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=513461&nseq=2

So I am picking at the edges. There are others rejected and when I get the right one I will post it here to see what people think.

Older photos, I think there should be a lot more leeway. I have a couple from 70's accepted and it took a lot of work and a good amount of PS. I was young, didn't know a lot and didn't worry about weeds. I mean in the 70;s around some railroads there were weeds everywhere so I shy away from scanning, cleaning, PS and then a rejection for weeds or not so sharp enough or pick your poison.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...501385&nseq=23


This one had some weeds in the foreground no where near the engines and I had to crop and deal with the problem. So I look at old slides that I think would be good but I see this "wrong" and "that " and so put it aside. Hey, I wish I were better but I don't want to deal with all the work just to have some "treasured memory" rejected.

Bob Jordan

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Gee, Bob on this one I would have to side with Jim and Loyd on the level issue.

PhotoID: 501385 Photograph © Robert Jordan

The water line is WAY off; not just a .0001.

In Aperture it would took me 2 seconds to fix.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Oh, I agree. Now it's easy so why not do it.

It's not like in the days of film and steam when just getting a good image or over the line was a miracle.

It's just that old film guys like me are less critical 'bout the .00001 unlevel stuff.

(Where's the .gif of beating a dead horse when you need it?

Luv ya Loyd!

Smart**s from New York City.

I would never hold the film shooters of old to the higher standards expected from having it MUCH easier today.

Loyd L.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

Hey now, Chuck Yeager hails from WV and he "ain't" no dumb***. Also Mylan Puskar, and Robert C. Byrd former Senate Majority leader and top officer (Exalted Cyclops) and founder of the states Ku Klux Klan just to name a few.

I looked a little closer and replied correctly down a few posts

Loyd L.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

No, but for F--KS sake this is two thousand and fifteen.

No it's not, it's TWENTY fifteen.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Oh, I agree. Now it's easy so why not do it.

It's not like in the days of film and steam when just getting a good image or over the line was a miracle.

It's just that old film guys like me are less critical 'bout the .00001 unlevel stuff.

Does it bother you when you see a photo hanging unlevel on a wall? I mean, people have been hanging pictures since the invention of the camera. I'm sure there were "old film guys" like you decades ago that were bothered by an unlevel hanging picture as much as an unlevel photograph.

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

In Aperture it would took me 2 seconds to fix.

Attachment 8839

Now it's unlevel in the other direction!

[blair kooistra]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

No, but for F--KS sake this is two thousand and fifteen. People run around with multi-thousand dollar easy buttons on their neck and a suite of software to match that can do everything for a photographer but wipe his/her a**. If you're submitting a shot taken within the last several years, there's zero excuse to not fix a technical issue such as a shot being un-level. If you can't tell if an image is level or not; learn. *You learned to use your easy button, and *you learned how to cook the curves in photoshop to make it all pretty, so learn to level an image.]

well, ya, I guess, unless you can't afford or don't deem it that important to have a multi-thousand dollar easy button camera around your neck. Some of us wish to spend less; have smaller cameras; smaller lenses;

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

Hey now, Chuck Yeager hails from WV and he "ain't" no dumb***. Also Mylan Puskar, and Robert C. Byrd former Senate Majority leader and top officer (Exalted Cyclops) and founder of the states Ku Klux Klan just to name a few.

Chuck - born in WV (but not Southern WV)
Mylan - born in PA
RCB - born in NC

Better try to name a few more...

Loyd L.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

No it's not, it's TWENTY fifteen.

Loyd L.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Chuck - born in WV (but not Southern WV)
Mylan - born in PA
RCB - born in NC

Better try to name a few more...

Loyd L.

Dang. Mother F' -en Wikipedia. Are you sure? after all you yourself said you were a dumb***

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

Dang. Mother F' -en Wikipedia. Are you sure? after all you yourself said you were a dumb***

We have little to brag about here, so we keep up with those who rise above the stigma...

Loyd L.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Better try to name a few more...

Loyd L.

Jerry West

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

No, but for F--KS sake this is two thousand and fifteen. People run around with multi-thousand dollar easy buttons on their neck and a suite of software to match that can do everything for a photographer but wipe his/her a**. If you're submitting a shot taken within the last several years, there's zero excuse to not fix a technical issue such as a shot being un-level.

Originally Posted by blair kooistra

well, ya, I guess, unless you can't afford or don't deem it that important to have a multi-thousand dollar easy button camera around your neck. Some of us wish to spend less; have smaller cameras; smaller lenses;

I think Loyd was engaging in rhetoric; his argument is sound regardless of the magnitude of the $$. Blair, IIRC I read somewhere that you use Fuji 4/3 equipment. That and $80 on PS Elements is plenty to get level shots. Heck, a digicam and PSE is plenty to get level shots good enough for RP, or to print.

[hoydie17]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Loyd L.

Rejected... unlevel...

[Mr. Pick]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I think Loyd was engaging in rhetoric; his argument is sound regardless of the magnitude of the $$. Blair, IIRC I read somewhere that you use Fuji 4/3 equipment. That and $80 on PS Elements is plenty to get level shots. Heck, a digicam and PSE is plenty to get level shots good enough for RP, or to print.

Actually Fuji's use APS-C sized sensors. Olympus is the major 4/3 player in the mirrorless market. Others like Panasonic dabble in it as well.