Thoughts/Opinions on PIQ

[Daniel SIMON]

Hi team,

Is the quality of this image that poor ?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...01&key=2078258

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts / opinions.
Daniel

[miningcamper1]

Undersharpened? Yes.
PIQ? No.

[RobJor]

The only thing I could see is that large parts of the roof are blocked out, doesn't bother me but??? then there is the empty access tunnel?

On another somewhat annoying note, there are 138 images today with about a third by ..............., not too appealing to me.

Bob

[Pkwlsn]

The area that jumps at me is the brickwork on the platform and also the ballast to the side of the train. It almost looks like excessive noise reduction was applied in those areas - making it appear a bit muddy. The edges of everything are very sharp, but areas that should have texture seem to be lacking.

[John West]

Parts of engine (can I call it that?) look over-sharpened with ziggies. But that said, over all the image quality looks acceptably good. I think this is one of those examples of the screener not liking the image for multiple reasons. The composition is not great, the person standing by the stairs is a bit distracting, and so on. Of course far worse images have been accepted. It is a marginal image that could have gone either way, and the fact it was rejected was the luck of the draw and the reason given very arbitrary. Such is life at RP, why are we surprised.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by John West

Parts of engine (can I call it that?) look over-sharpened with ziggies.

On second look, the jaggies are obvious at 200%.

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by John West

Parts of engine (can I call it that?) look over-sharpened with ziggies. But that said, over all the image quality looks acceptably good. I think this is one of those examples of the screener not liking the image for multiple reasons. The composition is not great, the person standing by the stairs is a bit distracting, and so on. Of course far worse images have been accepted. It is a marginal image that could have gone either way, and the fact it was rejected was the luck of the draw and the reason given very arbitrary. Such is life at RP, why are we surprised.

Funny,I didn't see the ziggies and thought ?? but now that I see it, can take my eye off it. Still with imperfections I'd rather see all the station details than the same train sailing through some farm fields.

I'll throw out my latest rejection for comment, not that I highly expected it to be accepted.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...02&key=5245897

Bob

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by RobJor

I'll throw out my latest rejection for comment, not that I highly expected it to be accepted.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...02&key=5245897

Bob

I like it as a night scene (the ornamentation on the library is way "over-the-top" ).
But the train isn't obviously a train at first glance.

A train crossing the bridge shown here would be interesting:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Collectio...brary-1-X2.jpg

[Daniel SIMON]

Many thanks to all of you for your valuable input and for taking a few minutes to look at the picture. Agree with your comments. This one will stay in the private collection.

Thanks,
Daniel

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

I like it as a night scene (the ornamentation on the library is way "over-the-top" ).
But the train isn't obviously a train at first glance.

A train crossing the bridge shown here would be interesting:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Collectio...brary-1-X2.jpg

Thanks for link, I have to search better as I look for comparisons.
I saw that but was there around 6:00 PM on a weekday. Would have been a long wait to catch a train without a bunch of car head lights in my face. When the autos fade away, the train freq fades so would be a labor of love.

Bob