Shadow on nose rejection

[John Russell - NZ]

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...34&key=8122305

I like this favorite from 2019 as is even if shot down for not enough nose light. Sorry to revisit this again, but it does seem that any shadow on the nose of a locomotive is a no-no. Yet RP will accept shots of trains with good nose light yet whole side of train is in shade. Other photos rejected like this are equally as popular as full nose light shots posted on my flickr. The last time I had such a rejection a very minor tweak saw the shot accepted by RP and it again was as popular as other shots of the train with arguably better nose light. I wonder if it really matters to most folks. Obviously it matters to RP. And it seems to matter more than it did. I've seen comments here that many photos in the database from years ago would likely suffer the same fate as mine if submitted today. To get back to the photo in question, I would be interested in techniques that can be effective for this situation. I shoot RAW and edit in DPP and PS Elements 11.

If the rejected image is no longer available here is the same image on my flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/158239...posted-public/

[John Russell - NZ]

Another example (which is back-lit so no hope) - rejected a few days ago by RP https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...88&key=7640544 but one of the most popular on my flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/158239...posted-public/

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ

Another example (which is back-lit so no hope) - rejected a few days ago by RP https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...88&key=7640544 but one of the most popular on my flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/158239...posted-public/

It is very frustrating and catches me off guard sometimes how it is applied and of course truly backlit photos are accepted. It does not make sense to me, the only thing I think of an artifact of the olden days in the US anyway when you took roster shots and there could be no shadows and should be sunny, 3/4 and with a 50mm lens.

However, that is the way it is, like you I have found other places for these shots and move on.

Bob

[miningcamper1]

As I type this, among today's accepted offerings there are (as expected) "dark nose" "high sun" "dark trucks" and "going away" shots.
Oh, well. It's a private website and not a democracy.

[John Russell - NZ]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/158239...posted-public/

RP rejection for having shadow from lights on the nose. I actually prefer this type of nose light as the headlights really being seen is a nice touch IMO. Many prefer steam trains back-lit for the steam effect and some like cloudy day shots, especially after rain, when the color of clean or freshly painted power is enhanced. I just think the rules are too rigid to even consider offering some of my photos which could spice up what I have posted so far. I tend to play it safe.

[John Russell - NZ]

I have now updated my signature as it had link to my old flickr page.

[John Russell - NZ]

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...03&key=9701750

Good enough for photogs following on my flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/158239...posted-public/

[John Russell - NZ]

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...70&key=3270384

[RobJor]

John is mining his old stuff and reaching down into second tier images? One of several:

PhotoID: 446971 Photograph © John Russell

He already has the wider this and the other type so he went for the head-on submission. If we are going to judge exposure I think need to see original before talking exposure. If the original was clearly poorly exposed then not good candidate. Steam overall is not my thing and not an expert but this image we are basically going from 000 to 256 and this is going to be a problem no matter what we do?? The you add in the phobia of RP's dark nose and you have a big hill to climb.

My criterion for photos is first how interesting by subject, second how interesting the photo is by technique then how all bits 0's and 1' fall and lastly by arbitrary rules.

Bob

[JimThias]

I've had LR on my computer for several years but have never used it. Seeme a bit too complicated for my pea brain. That's why I prefer photoshop.

[John Russell - NZ]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I've had LR on my computer for several years but have never used it. Seeme a bit too complicated for my pea brain. That's why I prefer photoshop.

Quote:

In processing (photoshop, in my case), I'll create a layer copy for processing the blown out sections. Then, using the shadow/highlights tool, tone down the highlights to retain some detail. After that, I'll create another layer copy and move that above the layer that I just used the highlights tool on. Next step is to create a layer mask, select the brush tool, and then remove the blown out sections of that layer with the one below it using the brush. Quite often I'll set the opacity of that brush around 20-30% and then brush it several times until I achieve the look I want. Then simply combine the two layers.

Well Jim if LightRoom is more difficult there's no hope for me. I couldn't even get my head around PS Elements to learn layers. And no hope for this photo either it would seem; I saw that rejection as a killer. A hill too hard to climb as Rob says. I figure that if RP wanted it they wouldn't have rejected it for a dark nose. The car tops don't bother me at all so I won't play with it more. The substitute submission with frontal nose light was rejected for high sun despite taken 16:30 - light maybe too frontal. Perhaps I stick to diesel shots!

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I've had LR on my computer for several years but have never used it. Seeme a bit too complicated for my pea brain. That's why I prefer photoshop.

I've found lightroom to be a lot easier than photoshop, what you just explained using layers seems a lot more complicated. The file management and plugins available for posting in LR are also super useful. But that's just what works for me.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak

I've found lightroom to be a lot easier than photoshop, what you just explained using layers seems a lot more complicated. The file management and plugins available for posting in LR are also super useful. But that's just what works for me.

Amen to that! I think Lightroom is far more intuitive than Photoshop. And, as noted, the resulting files are a lot smaller in size. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but on balance, I think Lightroom gives the photographer better tools to more quickly take the images from a photo shoot and get them fully processed. To me, the beauty of Lightroom is never having to SAVE anything. You can always quit and come back to an image later, and back out anything you previously did. The entire history of changes is there for you to see. No change is ever permanent until you export it to another format.

[RobJor]

My 2 cents, I learned at JC on Bridge and PS and didn't see big advantage to learn LR.

Most editing of digital I do in Camera Raw which is same as Lightroom. PS is for finishing touches for basic photography
End result file should not be any size difference in PS or LR unless you maintain layers.??? Tiffs are always large, a 1600 jpg is a 1600 jpg, layers are eliminated.

Layers add to file size but are there as the non-destructive part and the "going back feature". Most people I assume when they reach a result flatten their image. However an image can be saved in PS format and the layers are preserved "forever" allowing one to go back even years later.

For me it not a better, never used LR so can''t judge.

Bob

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak

I've found lightroom to be a lot easier than photoshop, what you just explained using layers seems a lot more complicated. The file management and plugins available for posting in LR are also super useful. But that's just what works for me.

Layers and masks are the easiest part of using photoshop (other than selecting auto features). I've been using photoshop for 15+ years and don't really have to think about what I'm going to do when processing an image. I know Lightroom has it's advantages, but it would be hard for me to give up the features in photoshop that I either don't exist or aren't as user friendly in LR.

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Layers and masks are the easiest part of using photoshop (other than selecting auto features). I've been using photoshop for 15+ years and don't really have to think about what I'm going to do when processing an image. I know Lightroom has it's advantages, but it would be hard for me to give up the features in photoshop that I either don't exist or aren't as user friendly in LR.

The best thing I've found with lightroom is you don't have to give up those PS features up, it's all integrated. You can take advantage of the photo management features and do some editing in lightroom, but a simple right click and "edit in photoshop" will open up PS with the photo. You don't even have to save from there, when you close photoshop it will automatically save it back into lightroom right in the same location as the original.

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak

The best thing I've found with lightroom is you don't have to give up those PS features up, it's all integrated. You can take advantage of the photo management features and do some editing in lightroom, but a simple right click and "edit in photoshop" will open up PS with the photo. You don't even have to save from there, when you close photoshop it will automatically save it back into lightroom right in the same location as the original.

As you can go back to RAW in PS for editing but of course you no longer have a RAW image but does make some color correction, distortion correction easier than starting over.

Bob

[bigbassloyd]

The recurring theme I'm noticing is the harsher mid-day lighting that your photos have. The contrast is flat, and there's that blueish cast that normally indicates the sun angle is rather high.

Loyd L.

[John Russell - NZ]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

The recurring theme I'm noticing is the harsher mid-day lighting that your photos have. The contrast is flat, and there's that blueish cast that normally indicates the sun angle is rather high.

Loyd L.

You might be right but, again, high sun was not the reason either photo was rejected for. The Silver Fern photo was at 12:05 but just a few days after winter finished. Too bad about the late running that day; there won't be another time as I've heard that they are withdrawn and being scrapped. The other photo was around 15:00 at the start of summer - borderline but acceptable to many. The cast should be correctable. To be honest never even noticed it.

[bigbassloyd]

I understand they weren't rejected for that specific reason, but if I were to put myself into a screeners' shoes.. a combination of little things could produce a rejection even if the rejection itself is not perfectly correct.

*edited since my judgement in lighting is harsher than others

Loyd L.

[John Russell - NZ]

Thanks Loyd. My preference is for the summer shot simply because of the trees being a deep green and the bogies of locomotive aren't visible anyway. My shot is most definitely NOT high sun. The bogies are very well lit and this is a narrow gauge train. If the train had passed just 30 minutes earlier it would be perfect. I await the appeal result. Meantime, I will post on Facebook group and see how many of the 3,500 members think the photo is back-lit or in anyway unworthy.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I have pulled these two files out and processed them quickly, but in my normal workflow and style. Both are 'sunlit' but which would you prefer? Did you find yourself judging the harsh sun shot more? Did it instantly jump out as 'more meh'?

Loyd L.

It jumped out at me not because of the harsh light, as you say (I think it looks fine), but rather because of the tight crop. The crop for the early spring shot is spot on though.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

It jumped out at me not because of the harsh light, as you say (I think it looks fine), but rather because of the tight crop. The crop for the early spring shot is spot on though.

The crop is just a bad composition from inexperience (it's a very old file for me). The lighting overall is subpar at best though. Aside from this instance, it will never be worthy of being shown again for any reason.

Loyd L.

[John Russell - NZ]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

The crop is just a bad composition from inexperience (it's a very old file for me). The lighting overall is subpar at best though. Aside from this instance, it will never be worthy of being shown again for any reason.

Loyd L.

I agree with Jim nothing wrong with the lighting in your green summer shot. It isn't a good example of high sun at all. Nothing wrong with the lighting in my photo either. That was the feedback I got from several train photographers with no contrary comment. The photo, not being able to be rejected for other defect was accepted. The real reason for initial rejection is more probably the subject. No other photos of this train in the RP database that I know of so it's strange.

[bigbassloyd]

It looks like it. That will be your problem here. If you are content with it, then that is absolutely fine. But you will not have the success here with those shots. I'm sorry.

You probably will not find any criticism on facebook because the users are conditioned to give praise or stay silent lol.

Loyd L.