You say the "Best rr photos on the net" ?

[John Russell - NZ]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Easy??? Not always. Try to find photos of the EMD FT for example. The search box seems to ignore any appropriate keyword. I had to find a photo of an FT (not very easy), and then click "more" in the description field.

I'd like to see how you get trying to find that on flickr LOL! I'd like to know of a train photo site with better database search. Anyway this is a bit of a tangent.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ

I'd like to see how you get trying to find that on flickr LOL!

Well, since you mentioned Flickr, I tried it. Lots of non-FT results, but there were at least 75 FT shots mixed in there. About 2 minutes for them all to load and there were probably more if I would have pressed "load more" again.

[RobJor]

I often use google search starting with railpics if I want photos from this site. So google search railpics FT yielded 46 results. Yahoo search required railpics FT locomotive.

But way back I used SQL which is a database search language. The railpics search is not very robust in that exact spelling is required. However, narrowing down the search on Railpics with years and states is very helpful if you can get the right search phrase to start with.

Of course problem with FT is it predated most contributors here.

Bob

PhotoID: 273757 Photograph © Bob Krone

[Decapod401]

I'm a little miffed by the screening process right now. I just received my third consecutive rejection for the same photo - color/hue, which I corrected, low contrast, which I corrected, and then another color/hue, which I don't see. but may be slightly off:

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...18&key=8733083

I'm not in the habit of calling out other people's work, but in the same screening sessions, these two underexposed, no-contrast roster shots were accepted.

PhotoID: Photograph ©

PhotoID: Photograph ©

Am I missing something here?

[Grewup on the CW]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

I'm a little miffed by the screening process right now. I just received my third consecutive rejection for the same photo - color/hue, which I corrected, low contrast, which I corrected, and then another color/hue, which I don't see. but may be slightly off:

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...18&key=8733083

I'm not in the habit of calling out other people's work, but in the same screening sessions, these two underexposed, no-contrast roster shots were accepted.




Am I missing something here?

I agree with you Doug. HUE is strong to the point it hurts the eyes and should have kicked both of these shots out. Stuff like this only adds fuel to the fire for recent discussions in this thread.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

I'm a little miffed by the screening process right now. I just received my third consecutive rejection for the same photo - color/hue, which I corrected, low contrast, which I corrected, and then another color/hue, which I don't see. but may be slightly off:

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...18&key=8733083

I'm not in the habit of calling out other people's work, but in the same screening sessions, these two underexposed, no-contrast roster shots were accepted.




Am I missing something here?

While those two you linked are definitely off, I did a shift towards blue and reduced saturation on yours to attempt to make the sky in yours more neutral

Loyd L.

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by Grewup on the CW

I agree with you Doug. HUE is strong to the point it hurts the eyes and should have kicked both of these shots out. Stuff like this only adds fuel to the fire for recent discussions in this thread.

Opinion only.
I am not beyond roster shots, recently posted a RI on the 40th year of shutdown. I have other shots from the same day but it did not occur to me drag out everyone on same day.
Bob

[Grewup on the CW]

Originally Posted by RobJor

Opinion only.
I am not beyond roster shots, recently posted a RI on the 40th year of shutdown. I have other shots from the same day but it did not occur to me drag out everyone on same day.
Bob

I am fine with any roster shots, just not the overpowering HUE in the accepted shots mentioned.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

Am I missing something here?

Something about these is very odd. Download and open in "preview", and the color cast bleeds out beyond the image.
If I open them in IrfanView, Lenovo, or SnagIt, the color is perfectly fine with no adjustment {although there are minor variations among the various editors).)

[miningcamper1]

I've never seen a photo affect the background before. Any theories?

Screenshots:

[KevinM]

Holy rose-colored glasses, Batman!!

Yikes, that is really strange! On my work laptop, both of Bernie's images have a strong....I mean STRONG, pink color-cast. But when I look at them on an IPAD, they might have a just a touch more red tint that they should, but they look much more natural.

When I saw those show up in the thread yesterday, I was at work (working from home ) and I could not figure out how those two PINK images ever got past the screeners. That's usually not a difficult thing to fix. Now, I am struggling to understand how they could look so different on a variety of displays. I've never seen that before either.

Does anybody have a good explanation? I am all ears.

[Craig Walker]

[quote=J-M Frybourg;196264]Another historic shot that can only get access to RPN because it is American: https://www.railpictures.net/photo/730795/
According to RPN standards that RPN team has put in writing in this forum, this picture has way too many defects for being accepted:
- High sun
- Front and back coupled
- Poor esthetic quality

It may have gotten accepted because of who shot it, as he has a ton of excellent photos posted here. And that is not to put him down, of course, but ... do the screeners play favorites? (I'm not sure they do, as one of the top photographers here in terms of quantity - and quality - told me he quit a few years ago because he was getting too many rejections. And he knows better than to post a subpar photo anywhere.

I get a lot of rejects, and a few get reversed on appeal. But sometimes the rejections seem fairly arbitrary, particularly when a "can't miss" shot gets rejected and the next photo, submitted because there is a 20% chance it might squeak through, gets accepted.

As for captions, and the lack thereof, I really dislike photos without even the basic information. At least on this site, locations are required. I wouldn't care if the caption is in another language - it can be translated if the viewer wants.

But I am surprised at how often the dates are missing, particularly on digital shots taken the month that they were posted! Really? You cannot remember when you took that photo in the last 20 days? Or check the photo's timestamp? (I suspect that some are leaving the day off deliberately, although the possible the reason for that eludes me.)

And, yes, the rejections have driven some of the best photographers I know to quit posting here. These are guys who have photos in Trains Magazine regularly, but get rejected here. One of them was a photojournalist for years, and I have never seen a photo of his that I didn't wish I'd taken. They get irritated that a nameless screener didn't feel the photo fit their aesthetic, as it as artistic, had human interest, was technically flawless in composition, exposure and sharpness, could never be repeated today, etc. And after their negative experiences here, they rarely even visit this site. Which is too bad, as they would add a lot here.

As for Monsieur Frybourg's comment regarding an American bias ... I have no doubt about that, if only because the screeners know what is rare or historic if it is a North American photo, but I suspect they do not have enough knowledge non-North American railroading to know. Which is a shame, as these photos would drive viewers from the rest of the world, and get the site's numbers up. And isn't that the point?

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by KevinM

Holy rose-colored glasses, Batman!!

Yikes, that is really strange! On my work laptop, both of Bernie's images have a strong....I mean STRONG, pink color-cast. But when I look at them on an IPAD, they might have a just a touch more red tint that they should, but they look much more natural.

When I saw those show up in the thread yesterday, I was at work (working from home ) and I could not figure out how those two PINK images ever got past the screeners. That's usually not a difficult thing to fix. Now, I am struggling to understand how they could look so different on a variety of displays. I've never seen that before either.

Does anybody have a good explanation? I am all ears.

I have no clue, but the same thing occurs to me with those two images. Looks horrid on the site, and perfectly normal in a photo editor.

Loyd L.

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

While those two you linked are definitely off, I did a shift towards blue and reduced saturation on yours to attempt to make the sky in yours more neutral

Loyd L.

Thanks, Loyd. I adjusted per your advice, and it's in:

PhotoID: 731235 Photograph © Doug Lilly

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I have no clue, but the same thing occurs to me with those two images. Looks horrid on the site, and perfectly normal in a photo editor.

Loyd L.

On my laptop, I don't get the pink on the site but they appear just as I first described, about two stops underexposed and no contrast. This is very strange.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

Thanks, Loyd. I adjusted per your advice, and it's in:

Good that this made it in!

BTW... Is there a "West Falls" in Philly? Google finds "East Falls" but not "West Falls".

[Mgoldman]

With regards to the color on the IC photos - I've had issues, not to that degree, in the past. I wonder if it's the color space? Unknowingly, while experimenting with Lightroom, I did not realize I was working in a different color space vs Bridge/ Photoshop.

It looked good on my screen and crappy on RP - yet, it happened to look nice on my I-phone. Adobe RGB vs Adobe sRGB.

As for favorites and rejections - the screeners should be more consistent (who used to always say that?), but with multiple screeners and multiple moods over periods of screening - some get through that should've been KINDLY rejected.

Better too many slip through than none at all - it's easy to scroll past.

No doubt, those were "grandfathered" in, due to age despite an easy fix - or maybe not so easy if they looked perfectly fine to either then poster or screener.

/Mitch


By the way - "auto" anything can be your friend - if for no other reason than to "proof" your shot. Like spell check, you don't need to abide to the results!

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

By the way - "auto" anything can be your friend - if for no other reason than to "proof" your shot. Like spell check, you don't need to abide to the results!

YES!!!
And what's your favorite one-click auto-fixer?

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

BTW... Is there a "West Falls" in Philly? Google finds "East Falls" but not "West Falls".

The rear of the pictured train is exiting West Falls Yard. Google is not so good at capturing railroad locations.

[Mgoldman]

West Falls is perhaps a railroad location. West Falls is in Philadelphia. There are two railroad bridges at this location.

The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, Schuylkill River Viaduct, also called the Reading Railroad Bridge and the Falls Rail Bridge, is a stone arch bridge that carries rail traffic over the Schuylkill River at Falls of Schuylkill in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil..._River_Viaduct

The Philadelphia & Reading Railroad's second bridge at West Falls complements the adjacent Falls Bridge (1854) in both appearance and operation; together they form a wye to simplify train movements into downtown Philadelphia. This bridge incorporated an 80'-long stone arch span, the P&R's longest at the time of its construction and retains its original wrought-iron plate girders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil..._at_West_Falls

/Mitch

[John Russell - NZ]

[quote=Craig Walker;196281]

Originally Posted by J-M Frybourg

Another historic shot that can only get access to RPN because it is American: https://www.railpictures.net/photo/730795/
According to RPN standards that RPN team has put in writing in this forum, this picture has way too many defects for being accepted:
- High sun
- Front and back coupled
- Poor esthetic quality

It may have gotten accepted because of who shot it, as he has a ton of excellent photos posted here. And that is not to put him down, of course, but ... do the screeners play favorites? (I'm not sure they do, as one of the top photographers here in terms of quantity - and quality - told me he quit a few years ago because he was getting too many rejections. And he knows better than to post a subpar photo anywhere.

And, yes, the rejections have driven some of the best photographers I know to quit posting here. These are guys who have photos in Trains Magazine regularly, but get rejected here. One of them was a photojournalist for years, and I have never seen a photo of his that I didn't wish I'd taken. They get irritated that a nameless screener didn't feel the photo fit their aesthetic, as it as artistic, had human interest, was technically flawless in composition, exposure and sharpness, could never be repeated today, etc. And after their negative experiences here, they rarely even visit this site. Which is too bad, as they would add a lot here.

As for Monsieur Frybourg's comment regarding an American bias ... I have no doubt about that, if only because the screeners know what is rare or historic if it is a North American photo, but I suspect they do not have enough knowledge non-North American railroading to know. Which is a shame, as these photos would drive viewers from the rest of the world, and get the site's numbers up. And isn't that the point?

Thanks Craig. I completely concur. The viewership probably falls in countries where there isn't enough local content being uploaded. I'm perhaps the only local member still uploading NZ trains. It's rare these days to see any evidence of local viewing or appreciation. A recent comment was the first in years that wasn't from an overseas viewer. Imagine if you were going through all this to upload photos on a site for say 500 views and it seemed nobody in the US was even watching. That's not that encouraging. It seems most unlikely that my average views will reach that of the site average because the typical viewer here is probably not that interested in NZ trains.

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by Craig Walker

As for captions, and the lack thereof, I really dislike photos without even the basic information. At least on this site, locations are required. I wouldn't care if the caption is in another language - it can be translated if the viewer wants.

This is one of my pet peeves with the site. Those who don't add captions seem to have the feeling that a good photo stands on its own, but a little context greatly improves the value of that photo.

Many of the photos without captions leave me with more questions than answers, so I tend to skip past them. I put a lot of time into researching and writing many of my captions, and I appreciate the contributors who do the same.

I would not be against the addition of a "caption missing" rejection.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

After seeing this different, yet superior version posted years back:



I would have probably rejected it.

Really odd that he posted the newer, tighter composition when he already has this version. Did he forget?

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by KevinM

I suspect that folks may be mistaken in assuming that RP.net's ONLY "raison d'etre" is to simply showcase the best quality photos on the net, from a technical perspective. While I think that's what they generally aim for, we all need to keep reminding ourselves that RP.net is not a hobby for the site owners, it's a business. It costs money to rent servers, storage and networking. And while it may be a noble goal to aim for high quality, they also have to aim for what they know pulls in the views, which keeps the advertisers happy and the revenue flowing in. Over time, I think that the owners have studied the performance of the material being posted and determined that a relatively small percentage of contributors bring in much more than their share of the total site views. With that knowledge, they might easily make the decision to waive the "submission guidelines" in some cases for those contributors, knowing that on average, those contributors are going to make them some money.

While I would agree that the shot being discussed is not among the contributor's best submissions, the gentleman has brought over 16 million views to the site, and the evidence definitely suggests that his scans of legacy railroad photos are extremely popular. The shot in question, with all of its faults, has over 9,000 views.....a lot more than the one I submitted today will ever get. As long his "technical zingers" don't become the norm, I suspect that the site owners are more than willing to hold their nose once in a while, because in general, his stuff is bringing home the bacon.

Yeah, but why does the better submission from 2013 have fewer than 10,000 views, while this poorer submission has more than 10,000 views? Baffling.

[JimThias]

Whoa...what in the world? When I open up one of the pink photos in photoshop, this is what it looks like. No idea what's going on here.