What say you?

Originally Posted by Amtrakdavis22

I agree with Ryan just because I see a lot of inconsistency in the screening team too. I didn't understand how I could get his photo accepted, then have one later in the day with the sun lower rejected for high sun.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=332292&nseq=7
That was taken at around 2pm. It was accepted but one taken after 6pm was rejected for high sun... that just doesn't make any sense.

I think it's very tough to be consistent in screening, just like it is for the home plate umpire calling balls and strikes. But come on, I can't deal with Joe West screening the photos (Joe West is the worst umpire in the major leagues).

Just my 2 cents.. Amtrakdavis22; your copyright is gigantic! I got this photo dinged for bad cropping and copyright too big; at Font size 18. Just shows how inconsistent they can be.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=839637&key=0

- Ian Hapsias

[stevenmwelch]

Originally Posted by IHapsias

Just my 2 cents.. Amtrakdavis22; your copyright is gigantic! I got this photo dinged for bad cropping and copyright too big; at Font size 18. Just shows how inconsistent they can be.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=839637&key=0

- Ian Hapsias

Ew, a copyright. Whoops, there's the negativity. I would have hit it for unlevel, bad color, cloudy, and a whole other plethora of reasons.. But that's just me being my negative self.

[gakei]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

I do not think RP needs more screeners. The queue zeros out multiple times daily, which means the current staff is capable of handling the workload imposed by the demand on the site (I'm sure the decision made at some point in the recent past to limit new users to two uploads/day has helped with this). Contrast that to JetPhotos, a massively popular site CK also owns; even with a staff of 38, the current screening queue has managed to accumulate over 12,800 photos, and it's unlikely to zero out for a long time unless they institute a moratorium on submissions until they can work through the backlog. (A shot I recently submitted took over 12 days to work its way through to a screener.)

It may imply the time spent on screening each photo is not enough here as compared to JetPhotos.Net (and another aircraft photo website of a similar nature with a name starts with letter A too, which has first screen and second screen or even third screen on a single photo). A decision made on accepting or rejecting a photo is done too fast. It may be a contributing factor for the screening issues raised here.

[Heymon]

Originally Posted by gakei

It may imply the time spent on screening each photo is not enough here as compared to JetPhotos.Net (and another aircraft photo website of a similar nature with a name starts with letter A too, which has first screen and second screen or even third screen on a single photo). A decision made on accepting or rejecting a photo is done too fast. It may be a contributing factor for the screening issues raised here.

This may be something I agree with. I have seen a few marginal shots make it that maybe shouldn't have, and a fair amount of rejections posted here that should have made it. Perhaps there could be a "maybe" button for screeners to select that would send certain photos to a second queue for a second look by either the same screener or another screener. A rejection from this second queue could include a screener comment that would tell the photographer what minor fix would work to get it in (as opposed to fixing one rejection reason only to be confronted with another one). For an unlevel rejection something like, "Go CW a little and it's in". Such a thing might reduce the workload on the appeals side.

That said, even if nothing changes I personally have little to complain about (even though there is always room for improvement). While I have a few rejections I felt were inconsistent compared to other accepted photos the same week, it is the screening process that has made me a better photographer. I don't have a lot of time to spend railfanning, so I tend to keep the requirements of this site in mind when I am out taking pictures. It tends to make my eye much better, especially compared to my skills prior to finding this place. I usually ask myself if RP is going to accept this photo I am about to take, and even when I am not shooting transportation I always ask myself if my composition is good, etc. as a result of constructive feedback I get here. Reading books on photography is fine, but in my opinion it is opening yourself up to direct judgment and criticism that really affects your individual skill even if some of those criticisms are inconsistent. You have to gain a certain degree of knowledge before you can even ascertain that there are inconsistencies, you know?

Andre

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by Heymon

Perhaps there could be a "maybe" button for screeners to select that would send certain photos to a second queue for a second look by either the same screener or another screener.

There's already an avenue where a screener can hold a shot for an admin to screen. I get that every once in a while and sometimes a person will come to the forums thinking their photo got lost in the shuffle.

By it's very nature, screeningphotos will never be an exact science. And there's no way to keep personal opinion out of it. That's like saying a movie critic needs to keep his or her personal opinion out of their review for "Inception," for example. How is that possible?

I can't think of an real way to change the process here and have it be better. More screeners, as I said earlier, would only lead to moe inconsistency. Having photos screened two and three times would put more work load on the screeners and add time to how long it taks for a shot to be accepted or rejected.

But every arguement or suggestion made in this thread comes down to the same single point -- their site, their rules. They can change the rules as they go if they see fit. It seems that they don't see serious problems with the way things run and FWIW, although no one asked, I don't either.

[WisconsinCentral]

"For a ho-hum NS -9 catfish roster shot or wedgie, maybe, otherwise, no.

Same thing with nose light, which they seem to be the most INCONSISTENT about. But it's their sandbox."

THANKYOU!

I feel like that is one of the biggest problems the site has. Along with cropping (which, depending on how nitpicky, isn't really basis for a rejection), lighting (IE:What is good lighting) is really a kicker. Half lit noses aren't bad in my book, or in many others, yet here its unacceptable. Fair, I suppose, because its their site and they can do what they wish, but troubling because I believe there have been alot of really neat lashups/shots that haven't seen the light of day just because it wasn't 100% perfect.

And thats where I believe discretion should be used. Like Troy said, I don't think anyone cares about an NS Dash 9 shot that isn't interesting/perfectly executed, but I think that a shot of a CSX SD40-2 out in Iowa is much more A)Rare, and B) Interesting. So therefore, in my eyes, that CSX shot should be looked at slightly differently. Now Im not saying that it should automatically get accepted, but moreso looked at as a "cool" factor. Thats probably just me, because Im a power nut, but I just feel like some rules are too rigid when its not really necessary. A good shot is generally a good shot.

And really, doesn't it come down to what WE like, as a viewer of the site? The more views a shot gets the better the site is, correct? Granted screeners need to weed out the trash, but we are the ones who do the dirty work, IE; garnering views and adverstisements.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Alec

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

More screeners, as I said earlier, would only lead to moe inconsistency.

More screeners lead to more variance in opinions on shots/styles, but if the presence of more screeners is used to have each image reviewed for a longer period of time, that can lead to greater consistency.

Not happening, and it may be that the screeners have maxed out on consistency given the constraints and the inherent subjectivity so adding more would not improve consistency, but that does seem like the right logic.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral

"Same thing with nose light, which they seem to be the most INCONSISTENT about. But it's their sandbox."

THANKYOU!

I feel like that is one of the biggest problems the site has. Along with cropping (which, depending on how nitpicky, isn't really basis for a rejection), lighting (IE:What is good lighting) is really a kicker. Half lit noses aren't bad in my book, or in many others, yet here its unacceptable.

To be precise, some complaints are a matter of consistency and some are a matter of disagreement. I personally see little inconsitency in how RP does nose light. The plainer and wedgier the shot, the more likely it will be kicked for bad nose light, but shots do get on if they have other aspects that make them worthy.

That is completely separate from the question of whether the RP standard for nose light, rather consistently applied in my view although certainly not totally, is something we agree with (I don't much care for how that standard is applied. But disagreement with the standard and the consistency of its application are different concepts.

[John West]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

.....it may be that the screeners have maxed out on consistency given the constraints and the inherent subjectivity so adding more would not improve consistency, but that does seem like the right logic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "maxed out", but sometimes I wonder if it is more like burned out. Screening a high volume of images as quickly as they do for as long as they have must be an incredibly tedious job. I wonder if after awhile their eyes just glaze over. More screeners might lead to greater inconsistency, but it also might provide the time and energy for a bit more thoughtfulness. So then we would only be dealing with thoughtful inconsistenty, or is it inconsistent thoughtfullness.

It is too bad the discussion got away from consistency to the standards themselves. Any meaningful standards for photography are going to be at least in part judgemental and therefore it is unlikely there would ever be universal agreement. But at least the standards can be stated up front (and debated here). But whatever standards the powers that be choose, I would like them to be applied reasonably consistently.

Given the nature of the screening process, the problem may be inherent to the beast and we are never going to be happy. Sigh.

[gakei]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Having photos screened two and three times would put more work load on the screeners and add time to how long it taks for a shot to be accepted or rejected.

Yes let's say every photo must pass second screen, either their workload will be double or the queue time will be double. In order not to increase the workload of screeners then at least myself don't mind to double the time of the queue, which means normally from one hour to two hours to let a photo got screened. It is still very very very efficent as compared to other sites, e.g. JetPhotos.Net.

But every arguement or suggestion made in this thread comes down to the same single point -- their site, their rules. They can change the rules as they go if they see fit. It seems that they don't see serious problems with the way things run and FWIW, although no one asked, I don't either.

We all well understand it is their sites, but is it a factor that we should not raise our comments here? We have our comments as photographers, whether the site owners and screeners like it or not, it is their decision.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by gakei

Yes let's say every photo must pass second screen, either their workload will be double or the queue time will be double. In order not to increase the workload of screeners then at least myself don't mind to double the time of the queue, which means normally from one hour to two hours to let a photo got screened.

This is simply not sensible. You cannot prevent the workload from being doubled by doubling the time of the queue. Each upload must still be screened, twice, no matter how long it sits in a queue before being screened. If you want the second screen, you must either double the number of screeners or you must halve the number of submitted shots.

[gakei]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

This is simply not sensible. You cannot prevent the workload from being doubled by doubling the time of the queue. Each upload must still be screened, twice, no matter how long it sits in a queue before being screened. If you want the second screen, you must either double the number of screeners or you must halve the number of submitted shots.

What I meant is the workload of a given period of time, e.g. one day, is the same. Let's say currently they process 1,000 uploads per day, but by doing a 2nd screen per upload then they can only process 500 uploads per day with each upload is screened twice. The daily workload will then be the same. You are correct the overall workload is doubled in the very long run but given the site is supposed to operate day by day in the coming long period of time, consideration of the overall workload of a very long period of time is not quite relevant.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by gakei

What I meant is the workload of a given period of time, e.g. one day, is the same. Let's say currently they process 1,000 uploads per day, but by doing a 2nd screen per upload then they can only process 500 uploads per day with each upload is screened twice. The daily workload will then be the same. You are correct the overall workload is doubled in the very long run but given the site is supposed to operate day by day in the coming long period of time, consideration of the overall workload of a very long period of time is not quite relevant.

OK, you have just said that screening throughput will be cut in half. This means either a) a forever growing queue length, or b) people see the long screening delay and don't upload as often. Of course the former won't happen, so in practice the latter will. Is the result a good thing, an improvement over the current situation?

Hard to say. Presumably consistency is improved, good. But necessarily, fewer images are accepted so viewers get to see fewer images, bad. And, given the screening delay, what sorts of shots continue to be uploaded, and what kind of shots go away for greener pastures? I have no idea.

And I have no idea whether the current situation or the hypothetical alternative is better, but my best first guess is that the reduced acceptance frequency means I will see fewer of the shots I want to see. Just a guess, though.

One thing to add. For me personally, the 12 day screening delay at jetphotos or wherever that is would drive me crazy and I would upload less often. I like the fast feedback on RP.

[nikos1]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

One thing to add. For me personally, the 12 day screening delay at jetphotos or wherever that is would drive me crazy and I would upload less often. I like the fast feedback on RP.

Im too lazy to read the whole thread but I definitely agree with this statement, I tryed sending something to JP once, took a absurd amount of time and then they threw the book at my 747 roster. I didnt think it was that bad and might have been able to be fixed but spending another two weeks or so to get one shot on was not worth it in my book.

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by nikos1

Im too lazy to read the whole thread but I definitely agree with this statement, I tryed sending something to JP once, took a absurd amount of time and then they threw the book at my 747 roster. I didnt think it was that bad and might have been able to be fixed but spending another two weeks or so to get one shot on was not worth it in my book.

Bad angle, bad cropping, high sun, going-away shots not generally accepted?

Jon

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

Bad angle, bad cropping, high sun, going-away shots not generally accepted?

Jon

Poor wing light.

[gakei]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

One thing to add. For me personally, the 12 day screening delay at jetphotos or wherever that is would drive me crazy and I would upload less often. I like the fast feedback on RP.

I don't know if you have real experience in waiting for such a long screening queue. For me the longest time to wait for a screening result when I uploaded aircraft photos to somewhere else was 15 days (or in the case when a photo went to the Head Screener after 3 screens but no decision could be made, which has last for 1 month).

This was no doubt a painful experience but when facing a long queue I will (1) obviously upload less photos but will be more carefully in choosing best of the best among all photos taken; (2) Post-process every upload in a more careful manner, e.g. more time will be spent on examining pixels by pixels, adjusting colours or brightness, checking horizontal level etc.; (3) bear more in mind the site standards as early as when taking photos because a second chance cannot be guaranteed after 2 weeks.

Will this discourage people from uploading more photos? Probably yes; But will this increase the quality of the uploads and decrease the workload of screeners? Yes too, at least in my case.

Back to some years ago before I knew the helpfulness of this forum, when I received a bad cropping rejection, I just re-cropped the photo, re-uploaded and again being re-rejected, and this was repeated 7 times within just a few hours. Since I knew the screening time was short, I had no cost in trying different croppings to "penetrate" the cropping preference of the screener. It is even faster to get real "feedback" from screeners (either accepted or rejected) than asking comments in forum here right? While I need to emphasize I am not enouraging such behaviour, but it is technically something photographers can do according to the current mechanism. In such extreme case, the queue simply increased 7 times due to an extra efficent screening process. Is it good for the screeners? I don't think so.

Back to the reality of RP.Net, I think no one will expect the queuing time will increase from 1 day to 12 days if we are going to introduce the 2nd screen mechanism, isn't it?

[gakei]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

Bad angle, bad cropping, high sun, going-away shots not generally accepted?

Jon

I think "high sun" is not that critical to aircraft photos, as aircraft are tube shape but trains are normally more "box" shape.

[Amtrakdavis22]

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch

Ew, a copyright. Whoops, there's the negativity. I would have hit it for unlevel, bad color, cloudy, and a whole other plethora of reasons.. But that's just me being my negative self.

Yeah Steven I know what you think. Do I care? No

[Amtrakdavis22]

Originally Posted by IHapsias

Just my 2 cents.. Amtrakdavis22; your copyright is gigantic! I got this photo dinged for bad cropping and copyright too big; at Font size 18. Just shows how inconsistent they can be.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=839637&key=0

- Ian Hapsias

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=332292

Is that better?

[coborn35]

Rather pointless, if I was going to steal your photo I would just crop out the bottom.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by Amtrakdavis22

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=332292

Is that better?

It needs CCW rotation

[Joe the Photog]

When you get down to it, why do you need your own copyright directly above the RP black bar?

[crazytiger]

IMHO, I love the look of JamesB's copyright. However, I don't think it is very useful and it detracts for them image.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by gakei

I think "high sun" is not that critical to aircraft photos, as aircraft are tube shape but trains are normally more "box" shape.

What's the equivalent of a wedgie for an airplane shot. I guess it would stand to reason that there are more airplane shots because you can stand next to an reasonably busy airport and shoot "wedgie" after "wedgie" and get them on?

Having never shot a moving plane, I would think the same technique would apply in terms of shutter speed, but since a lot of the time you are shooting against the sky, I guess you could get by with less DoF, so larger apertures would be easier to pull off. I'm just speculating here, anyone care to chime in?

Anyone here into shooting planes? Most of them look the same to me, outside of 747's and A340's and the now practically non-existant DC10/MD11/L1011's and 727's. I guess the 737 would be treated like an NS -9 widecab or GEVO among the jetphotos crowd.