Confused

[Daniel SIMON]

I sometimes really have problems to understand the RP.net rules and their appliance.

Picture rejected;

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...46&key=3679046

Picture accepted;

PhotoID: 626126 Photograph © Steve Schmollinger

Did I miss something ????????????????

Thanks,
Daniel

[bigbassloyd]

When taking a 'portrait', do you shoot the persons face or butt? I'm agreeable to the rejection because it isn't an aesthetic angle to me. What about a true side view or the standard roster wedgie?

For the record, Steve's shot should have been rejected for several reasons along with the angle.

I've said it before but here it comes again.. Just because bad gets in doesn't mean all bad should.

Loyd L.

[Daniel SIMON]

[quote=bigbassloyd;192006]When taking a 'portrait', do you shoot the persons face or butt?

This depens on the person .................

[troy12n]

Wow, complete garbage on so many levels

[bigbassloyd]

[quote=Daniel SIMON;192007]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

When taking a 'portrait', do you shoot the persons face or butt?

This depens on the person .................

then both right?

Loyd L.

[RobJor]

I'd suppose the accepted fits in the creative category and does show the opposing train cleverly peaking through the signal posts. The rejected, there are several nice ones of that charter already posted so I would guess the rejection was not a complete surprise as this was a lets dig through old files photo that I didn't post originally????.

Bob

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by RobJor

I'd suppose the accepted fits in the creative category and does show the opposing train cleverly peaking through the signal posts. The rejected, there are several nice ones of that charter already posted so I would guess the rejection was not a complete surprise as this was a lets dig through old files photo that I didn't post originally????.

Bob

Image quality is absolutely horrendous though... and several other things

[Noct Foamer]

The reason Simon's shot was rejected might be because the screeners thought Baggy Dave took it.


Kent in SD

[Mberry]

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer

The reason Simon's shot was rejected might be because the screeners thought Baggy Dave took it.


Kent in SD

[John West]

It is ridiculous to compare Daniel's image with Steve's, I hope the "genre" difference is pretty obvious. Both have serious defects (Daniel's is kinda "static", Steve's is a bit too "creative" at least for me). But both probably deserve to be in the data base, at least in the sense that a lot worse do get accepted.

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Wow, complete garbage on so many levels

Troy,

Could you please argue the above statement ?

Many thanks in advance,
Daniel

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by John West

It is ridiculous to compare Daniel's image with Steve's, I hope the "genre" difference is pretty obvious. Both have serious defects (Daniel's is kinda "static", Steve's is a bit too "creative" at least for me). But both probably deserve to be in the data base, at least in the sense that a lot worse do get accepted.

John,

The only thing that I wanted to point out is that both Steve's and my picture are "going away" shots. I fully agree with you that otherwise the two photos are not comparable.

Kind regards,
Daniel

[KevinM]

Sometimes, I think that decisions with regard to images that technically violate the "rules" are made for business reasons. It is likely that the screeners believe that some images will generate significant views, and that is a larger consideration than the technical rules violation. In the case of Steve's image, it cleared 1,500 views in 24 hours, perhaps helped a little by the controversy associated with this thread. 1,500 views is a pretty good 24 hr run for an image on RP these days, so in retrospect, the screener's call on that photo was probably a good one from the standpoint of RP as a business.

Two things to remember:

1. Don't get too hung up on "the rules"
2. RP is a business, not a government agency. I think they try to be fair.....but they don't HAVE to be.

[baggydave]

They knew I didn't take it. It wasn't PAQ'd!!

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Daniel SIMON

Troy,

Could you please argue the above statement ?

Many thanks in advance,
Daniel

I assumed he was referring to the 844 shot. I'm generally not enthused about extreme wide angles. I acquired a fisheye when they came into vogue, but soon regretted it.