So what's it going to be?!!!

[henfiet]

As I mentioned in another thread, the screening inconsistencies on here is quite humorous.
I uploaded the pic below and got an undersharpened rejection reason. (I actually figured it would get the opposite)
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=282393218

So, I took the photo and slightly sharpened it a little....as little as my program would let me. That was the ONLY thing I did with it. In my opinion, it was oversharpened at that point, but I simply did what the screener "recommended" after the first rejection. And as I result, I got this anticipated rejection reason:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1259061794
Since the 2-upload per day rule is now in effect, I'm not even going to bother appealing or uploading the pic again. I'll just wind up getting a different response each and every time! I can't help but laugh a little!

Hans

[asis80]

Hans, stop crying. If you don't want to get flamed or what not here, stop right there and before you get out of hand with other threads. Did you reprocess the original? If you went back and processed the rejection, it's gonna look like shit. Sorry to put it that way, but that's how it goes. With ANY program for that matter. It's just a cardinal rule of processing. The image quality is pretty poor with the first rejection. It may be the way you're saving (Not saving at the highest quality) or the way you're processing or even your editor. Give us more insight on how you save, how you process, and what program do you use for processing. Also what camera, lens, etc. Give us more instead of bitching.

Ben

[Joe the Photog]

Those rejection reasons are dead on for those shots, Hans. Both are valid, but the second rejection is even more dead on than the first, in my opinion. It looks like it's almost a really good shot that, with the right processing, could and might very well get in the database if you're willing to take the advice of those here and make the ever so slight adjustments needed to get it on here.

Stop bitching about the rejections and try to improve the shot. Or don't try to improve the shot and stop bitching about the rejections. I almost understand when people who clearly have no concept of good photography come here or upload shots elsewhere and complain. They clearly cannot see thier picture is just that, a picture, not a photograph. But when I see a shot that is 95 percent of the way to being good enough, then I cannot understand why the photog gets all up in arms about the screeners. The screeners don't want to reject shots. They'd rather let them all in. It means more ads for them, more pages viewed, a win-win, no doubt.

At second glance at the shots, Ben is right. The image quality is poor and that suggests a camera issue. The framing and exposure looks pretty good. I may would have cropped off both sides, but I don't think that's a major concern with RP standards. In the past, folks have scoffed when we ask for camera settings, etc. But it can really help us pin point issues.

Just relax and learn to go with the flow, dude.

[Ween]

That first shot to me looks softly oversharpened; parts look soft while other parts are way too sharp. No question on the second one.

But, yeah, provide some info on what you're using both to shoot and to process and you'll get some help.

Bottom line though: regardless of screener inconsistency, those shots need help. Bitching about the screeners isn't going to fix that issue...

[travsirocz]

If your program only does huge extensive sharpening when set at a minimum you may want to get a different program. The first image is a tad soft but the second one is way way over sharpened. Your program must have hammer controls where you need something you can fine tune.

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by henfiet

As I mentioned in another thread, the screening inconsistencies on here is quite humorous.
I uploaded the pic below and got an undersharpened rejection reason. (I actually figured it would get the opposite)
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=282393218

So, I took the photo and slightly sharpened it a little....as little as my program would let me. That was the ONLY thing I did with it. In my opinion, it was oversharpened at that point, but I simply did what the screener "recommended" after the first rejection. And as I result, I got this anticipated rejection reason:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1259061794
Since the 2-upload per day rule is now in effect, I'm not even going to bother appealing or uploading the pic again. I'll just wind up getting a different response each and every time! I can't help but laugh a little!

Hans

Hans, that garbage shot is wasting the screeners time, if you ask me. The quality is quite poor. If you're going to argue about a shot, atleast argue about one that is halfway decent in quality.

Take a look at what gets accepted and then compare the quality of the accepted shot to your rejected photo. You'll find a major difference. You had good lighting on your side, but the quality ruins it.

Chase

[milwman]

Looks over compressed at the time you saved it to me.

[henfiet]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

Hans, that garbage shot is wasting the screeners time, if you ask me. The quality is quite poor. If you're going to argue about a shot, atleast argue about one that is halfway decent in quality.

Take a look at what gets accepted and then compare the quality of the accepted shot to your rejected photo. You'll find a major difference. You had good lighting on your side, but the quality ruins it.

Chase

Ok, I took a look at your photos on here. You think my shot(s) are garbage....guess what, I think some of yours are too! And no I'm not saying that to be mean or to "get back at you." They really are crap!
For instance, this shot....
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=294784&nseq=9

Sorry, but of all the CSX SD70MAC's painted in YN3 colors, I have NEVER seen one with a nose this blatently yellow before. I don't know if your camera color "temperature" was off, or if you just adjusted the hell out of the color hue, but this is awful! Here's what it is supposed to look like.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=258995&nseq=5

Stop parading around on here thinking you're God's gift to the RR photography world. It seems there are quite a few of those on here as a matter of fact. I never said I was myself, and I don't pretend to be. But when better photos from photographers other than myself get rejected when crap like the pic above is accepted, it makes me wonder exactly whose butt you guys are kissing to get shots on here. Too bad visitors themselves to this site can't appeal/reject some of the accepted photos on here, as there are quite a few that would fall under that category. At the very least, they should provide a rating system like the one used on the railvideos.net site!

[henfiet]

Ok, I'll back up a bit here. The first rejected photo I linked to was completely untouched other than resizing down to the requirements for the website. I kept it up to the 1024 pixel range for minimum quality loss. After the rejection, I went back to the original photo and slightly sharpened it BEFORE resizing it again. I knew exactly what the rejection reason would be on this time around, but I uploaded it anyway...after all, they said the first one was "undersharpened"!
For the particulars, this shot came from a Panasonic FZ50 at 35mm, ISO200, 1/1000th. Can't remember what the aperture was.... The original pixel ratio was 3648x2736. Software used is Adobe Photoshop and Arcsoft PhotoStudio.

[Railfan Ohio]

Your photo would have been rejected for undersharpened because you need to sharpen it again after you resize it, because it losses sharpness.

As to calling out other photographers, don't. You don't make friends, you sound whiney, and you sound childish. Remember that lighting and dirt on a nose will change what the color looks like. Also, the photographer might make it look different based on personal preference.

[Photoshooter09]

Originally Posted by henfiet

Ok, I took a look at your photos on here. You think my shot(s) are garbage....guess what, I think some of yours are too! And no I'm not saying that to be mean or to "get back at you." They really are crap!
For instance, this shot....
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=294784&nseq=9

Sorry, but of all the CSX SD70MAC's painted in YN3 colors, I have NEVER seen one with a nose this blatently yellow before. I don't know if your camera color "temperature" was off, or if you just adjusted the hell out of the color hue, but this is awful! Here's what it is supposed to look like.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=258995&nseq=5

Stop parading around on here thinking you're God's gift to the RR photography world. It seems there are quite a few of those on here as a matter of fact. I never said I was myself, and I don't pretend to be. But when better photos from photographers other than myself get rejected when crap like the pic above is accepted, it makes me wonder exactly whose butt you guys are kissing to get shots on here. Too bad visitors themselves to this site can't appeal/reject some of the accepted photos on here, as there are quite a few that would fall under that category. At the very least, they should provide a rating system like the one used on the railvideos.net site!

Granted, I've only been posting a short time on this site, I think that I will delve into this one..... Why do some people turn getting photos accepted to this site a "religious crusade"? I personally do not have a single photo that has been accepted here. However, I would never call out someone elses picture as, "garbage" or, "crap" or the like. Now the OP did seem a little torqued up over his rejection but, I feel that it was childish at best for "Chase" to call his (or her's) photo garbage. Now to the OP, I can see the reason for the rejection and the photo needs some work but, I wouldn't call it "garbage". Just my $.02.

Noll C.

[Joe the Photog]

You've got a really bad attitude, dude. You came to this forum and opened up your shot to our critique. When we didn't coddle you and tell you that the big, bad screeners were wrong, you went off on one of us. Get over yourself. Either fix your photograph or shut up. Granted, Chase did go overboard, too with his "garbage" comment.

[Railfan Ohio]

Here are some photos of the same train at nearly the same location at the same time that I was talking about photographer differences.

PhotoID: Photograph ©

PhotoID: 239565 Photograph © Paul Duda

PhotoID: 239558 Photograph © John Ireland

[Andrew Blaszczyk (2)]

Composition can use some improvement.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by henfiet

Software used is Adobe Photoshop and Arcsoft PhotoStudio.

If you are using photoshop then you are using the wrong way to sharpen. In PS you can set the sharpening level so low that you can't see the difference what so ever. There are about 20 different ways you can sharpen a photo also. To start I would do a google or rp forum search on unsharp mask (usm). Do not use the "sharpen and sharpen more" feature in PS as you have no control. If you google PS sharpening you will learn many different ways to sharpen and when to sharpen for different photos.

Why did you resize the rejected photo again? All you needed was slight sharpening.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)

Composition can use some improvement.

or at least a tighter crop.

[travsirocz]

I take it quick replies do not count as posts?
edit - I guess they do, just a glitch!

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by henfiet

Ok, I took a look at your photos on here. You think my shot(s) are garbage....guess what, I think some of yours are too! And no I'm not saying that to be mean or to "get back at you." They really are crap!
For instance, this shot....
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=294784&nseq=9

Sorry, but of all the CSX SD70MAC's painted in YN3 colors, I have NEVER seen one with a nose this blatently yellow before. I don't know if your camera color "temperature" was off, or if you just adjusted the hell out of the color hue, but this is awful! Here's what it is supposed to look like.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=258995&nseq=5

Stop parading around on here thinking you're God's gift to the RR photography world. It seems there are quite a few of those on here as a matter of fact. I never said I was myself, and I don't pretend to be. But when better photos from photographers other than myself get rejected when crap like the pic above is accepted, it makes me wonder exactly whose butt you guys are kissing to get shots on here. Too bad visitors themselves to this site can't appeal/reject some of the accepted photos on here, as there are quite a few that would fall under that category. At the very least, they should provide a rating system like the one used on the railvideos.net site!

Parading around? I'm not "parading" around, nor do I think I am a gift from God. You came here to RP.net in a PMsing mood, which is exactly what I gave you in return. Calling out other shots is a big "no no" on RP.net and will result in making rivals here on the forums. I wouldn't suggest doing that in the future, unless you just want everyone to hate you.

Originally Posted by Photoshooter09

Granted, I've only been posting a short time on this site, I think that I will delve into this one..... Why do some people turn getting photos accepted to this site a "religious crusade"? I personally do not have a single photo that has been accepted here. However, I would never call out someone elses picture as, "garbage" or, "crap" or the like. Now the OP did seem a little torqued up over his rejection but, I feel that it was childish at best for "Chase" to call his (or her's) photo garbage. Now to the OP, I can see the reason for the rejection and the photo needs some work but, I wouldn't call it "garbage". Just my $.02.

Noll C.

Noll, normally I would not act like a total douche to a newbie, but his attitude is why I referred to his shot as garbage. If he would've been a bit more nice about it, instead of calling out the screeners and throwing a fit, I probably would've given him the best advice, but I have absolutely no tolerance for these photographers who come on here and bitch about their shots being rejected.

We've all had rejections, it's just a matter of how you handle them.

Originally Posted by Railfan Ohio

Your photo would have been rejected for undersharpened because you need to sharpen it again after you resize it, because it losses sharpness.

As to calling out other photographers, don't. You don't make friends, you sound whiney, and you sound childish. Remember that lighting and dirt on a nose will change what the color looks like. Also, the photographer might make it look different based on personal preference.

Exactly. The only reason I increased the saturation on that 70MAC is a result of that nose being super dirty. If gave the nose a "backlit" appearance, so I increased the color in hopes to prevent that.

Chase

[asis80]

Originally Posted by henfiet

Panasonic FZ50 at 35mm, ISO200, 1/1000th. Can't remember what the aperture was.... The original pixel ratio was 3648x2736. Software used is Adobe Photoshop and Arcsoft PhotoStudio.

I really don't know what to tell you Hans. Your camera is def. not an issue, a quick review over at DPreview shows it's not a bad camera at all. Looking at your original rejections before you and some others got their cooter pants in a bunch, your 2nd one is actually surprisingly to me, looking better than the 1st. That 1st rejection is just.....eh. Really soft and it looks like there was something all over your lens maybe. The 2nd one, although REALLY over processed, looks better, but still. You over did it. Did you go from the original when fixing it? Can we see an original? Instead of fighting, show me and tell me how you processed the shot.

Ben

[Ween]

Stop parading around on here thinking you're God's gift to the RR photography world. It seems there are quite a few of those on here as a matter of fact.

Name names.

[asis80]

Originally Posted by Ween

Name names.

I'm kinda waiting also, this should be interesting.


Ben

[Chris Starnes]

I think the useful life of this thread has ended. No need to drag this out any further.