Appeal?

[Jeff Terry]

I have to admit, I'm surprised at this rejection. Thought I had a winner. Should I appeal or just let it go?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...28&key=1906857

[Mgoldman]

I'll have to check the "About Us" page - is Margaret Whitton, aka Rachel Phelps from the movie "Major League" the new head screener?

She purposely made life miserable for the baseball team she inherited after her husband's death with the goal of dissolving the team so she could move on to better things.

I think RP is in self destruct mode...

/Mitch


PS - Great shot, Jeff!
The logic behind the rejection is "Jyussssst a bit outside" of my understanding.

[Mgoldman]

That's gotta be frustrating considering this cloudy day shot from a while back:

PhotoID: 438707 Photograph © Chris Starnes

But perhaps not as annoying as seeing this image accepted right after yours was rejected:

PhotoID: 444185 Photograph © Jeremiah Rindahl

BTW - My only point in bringing this up is to try to get admin to see these issues from another point of view. You can't fix a problem if you don't understand or even know (or believe) it is perceived to exist.

Ie; Jeff's shot is not worthy, but Chris's overcast common equipment shot is and /or, my shot was just rejected yet this one screened by the same screener was found to be within the boundaries of what we like to see accepted on RP.

Of course, another way to look at it is on it's own merits alone. In that respect, it's 1 of only 4 photos of this engine (where as Chris's SW-1500, btw, is one of only 1,895), it's a skillfully captured pan (rods down, no less), and not only is there blue sky in the shot, but there's a sheen on the metal parts indicating the subject had light on it. I think I have a similar pan with Arcade and Attica #18 that did get accdepted (and PC'd).

And SC'd, no less:

PhotoID: 255401 Photograph © Mitch Goldman

Perhaps this could be perceived as a mistake and would not have been acceptable today?

/Mitch

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Jeff Terry

I have to admit, I'm surprised at this rejection. Thought I had a winner. Should I appeal or just let it go?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...28&key=1906857

Jeff,

There are PLENTY of shots on RP that have lighting far worse than that. In fact, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. You did fine.

Depending on your level of patience, you could either appeal or just hold it for a while. I swear that there's at least one screener who is making decisions with a dart board.

[Mgoldman]

Kevin stole my "/", lol.

/Mitch

[Jeff Terry]

Thanks for the advice, guys! I wanted to make sure that there wasn't something wrong that I was overlooking. I'll decide if I want to appeal or do some tweaking and resubmit.

Jeff Terry

[Hatchetman]

You could brighten that up a bit in processing...a little more exposure, adjust levels, maybe a little more temperature. Play with it and resubmit.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by Hatchetman

You could brighten that up a bit in processing...a little more exposure, adjust levels, maybe a little more temperature. Play with it and resubmit.

Yeah... there's always that option.

Anytime I get an "underexposed" or "too dark" rejection, I simply brighten, usually through shadows and highlights.

Granted it probably didn't look like this but sometimes it's more about looks then reality. Overall, I think it's more pleasing as well. It looks closer to reality then other modifications recently accepted, too.

Shadows and highlights... warmed up a bit and then the ever so popular but tastefully done vignette. Sorry, you can't tell it's there - but that's what makes it so effective.

"Brighten this up to make it pop" - that would be a welcome rejection statement.

/Mitch

[Sean Mathews]

If that wasn't accepted, I might as well just give up on trying my stuff at all.

Seriously.

I think they were probably leaning towards the common power aspect as opposed to the cloudy day/common angle.

[Jeff Terry]

Took the advice Mitch gave and resubmitted.

Thanks again!

[KevinM]

I personally didn't think that the original version needed any brightening at all. I would have been proud to have that shot in my collection as-is. It appears as if you shot into that grove of trees to take the white sky out of the mix, so you could expose for the subject....and you did it well. It doesn't need to glow in the dark.

Historically, RP has not enforced the "cloudy/common" rule on steam engines. In fact, they don't always enforce it on diesels either. Perhaps they are training a new screener, who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the words steam and "common" in the same sentence. Certainly, if the screener was familiar with this particular locomotive, he'd know there is absolutely nothing common about it.

[davecrosby]

Wow, that shot got rejected, but these get on?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=439408&nseq=5

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...438718&nseq=13

[CSX1702]

Originally Posted by davecrosby

Wow, that shot got rejected, but these get on?

Welcome to RailPics.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

PS - Great shot, Jeff!
The logic behind the rejection is "Jyussssst a bit outside" of my understanding.

Mitch just likes it because the rods are down

I am dumbfounded also...that is an awesome shot !

An appeal with some of the examples Mitch showed should get it in but the whole issue is: why should you have to go to all the trouble?

This is known as a "Debbie Downer"

[Jeff Terry]

Accepted on the second time around. Thanks for the advice.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=444322&nseq=5

[willig]

Originally Posted by Jeff Terry

Accepted on the second time around. Thanks for the advice.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=444322&nseq=5

I should think so too. This is a great shot that should have been accepted first time. A real quality pan.

[Sean Mathews]

Originally Posted by davecrosby

Wow, that shot got rejected, but these get on?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=439408&nseq=5

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...438718&nseq=13

Ahhhhh. Maybe the key to this whole site is having a snazzy watermark/signature and copyright.

[JMC]

Originally Posted by Sean Mathews

Ahhhhh. Maybe the key to this whole site is having a snazzy watermark/signature and copyright.

Sean I think you've nailed it. I'm crafting mine as I type this...

[Sean Mathews]

Honestly, I think the screeners are much like vegas slot machines. Some are much more loose than others, while some don't want to pay out regardless of how much you put in.