Old 11-18-2007, 01:33 AM   #1
Data
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14
Default Rejected Photo Comments

Just got my new camera and got a few photos. This one was one of the better ones but got rejected any comments on what I could do better next time.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=448100&key=0
Data is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 01:39 AM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Crop in close to emphasize the interaction between the T&E and maintenance people. You may be able to do that with this one.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 03:03 AM   #3
Data
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14
Default

Just tried that but they just don't like that truck. I think it adds to the photo.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=448239&key=0
Data is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 03:12 AM   #4
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

I've noticed that they don't tend to like MOW equipment.

Did you write a note to the screener?
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 03:27 AM   #5
Data
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14
Default

No I did not put any note with the photo but that may of helped.
Data is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 10:13 AM   #6
WembYard
Senior Member
 
WembYard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 646
Default

Data, maybe you could try something like the attached. I know it cuts the rear of the loco off but, as Janusz suggests, it does emphasize the "human element". It also looks less like a roster shot with a truck parked in front of it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg_v2.jpg
Views:	97
Size:	220.2 KB
ID:	2341  
WembYard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 10:27 AM   #7
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WembYard
Data, maybe you could try something like the attached. I know it cuts the rear of the loco off but, as Janusz suggests, it does emphasize the "human element". It also looks less like a roster shot with a truck parked in front of it.
Yes! When I said "crop," maybe I should have been clearer and said CROP. Or,

CCCCC RRRR OOO PPPP
C R R O O P P
C RRRR O O PPPP
C R R O O P
CCCCC R R OOO P


I would crop tighter than Janet, even. Even losing the front of the engine, so as to focus on the people.

PS Oh well, can't do the "CROP" thing in huge letters, doesn't work in this sytem.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 04:27 PM   #8
Data
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14
Default

Thanks for the help I tried to crop it but still did not seem to help.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=319702215
Data is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 05:56 PM   #9
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,905
Default

The third reject is the best ofthe bunch for all the reasons others listed above me. I would appeal and say that you were trying to focus on the interaction between the crews. It might still not make it, but at least you have made yourself clear to the screeners.

It's actualy a much better shot cropped in and the fact that you can clearly make out the trainman's face is a definite plus.

I also note the engine description under the number. Is thi a mistake or are they derating GP40-2s?

And don't tell me they don't like MoW stuff. Blanket statements are generally not true to begin with.

Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©


Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©


Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©



Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 06:42 PM   #10
Carl Becker
Senior Member
 
Carl Becker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
And don't tell me they don't like MoW stuff.
This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments? Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.
Carl Becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 07:21 PM   #11
Data
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14
Default

Well I appealed it and it got rerejected
Data is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 08:14 PM   #12
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Becker
This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments? Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.
My ESP is down for the day. Instead, is it possible to see the shot you're talking about?




Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2007, 10:56 PM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
I've noticed that they don't tend to like MOW equipment.
I'm with Joe, I disagree completely:

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 212197
Photograph © Jim Thias

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 209332
Photograph © Jim Thias

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 190193
Photograph © Jim Thias


However, I AM slightly stunned that they'd reject that for "foreground clutter." I like your photo not only for the human element, but also for the comparison in railroad equipment. The position of the high railer is perfect to show the size difference between that and a locomotive. How else would that scene be acceptable?

Last edited by JimThias; 11-18-2007 at 10:58 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 12:37 AM   #14
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

When I saw the reason for rejection, I actually laughed, then thought to myself with a further chuckle "Oh, that's railpictures for you.."
One thing I noticed about most of the MOW photos shown above - They're action shots! Something tells me the screeners just aren't excited by the prospect of a pickup truck on steel wheels.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 01:59 AM   #15
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Becker
This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments?

Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.

No - it is really hard to get a rejected shot on the database

But seriously, I submitted some interesting MOW shots and consistently got the esthetic rejection, so I gave up submitting them. Now I enjoy them in my personal collection.
The attached picture was the subject of a forum some months ago: http://forums.railpictures.net/showthread.php?t=5435
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	excavators.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	262.3 KB
ID:	2343  
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 02:44 AM   #16
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Becker
This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments? Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.
The only MOW shot I've gotten accepted
Image © Loyd Lowry
PhotoID: 207810
Photograph © Loyd Lowry


The attached photo was rejected for PEQ

Loyd L.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	bucketxing_filtered.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	101.2 KB
ID:	2344  
__________________
Those who seek glory, must also seek infamy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 03:09 AM   #17
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
I've noticed that they don't tend to like MOW equipment.

Did you write a note to the screener?
they don't like what?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=207860
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 04:07 AM   #18
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Image © Bill Grenchik
PhotoID: 207860
Photograph © Bill Grenchik


Yes, but there is a locomotive in the picture
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 04:30 AM   #19
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Image © Bill Grenchik
PhotoID: 207860
Photograph © Bill Grenchik


Yes, but there is a locomotive in the picture
and there was a locomotive in the picture that started this thread
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=319702215
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 05:27 AM   #20
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

"Railpictures doesn't accept shots of MoW equipment/Hi Rails"

Bull! Stop making excuses/generalizing!

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 172396
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus


Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 101107
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus


Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 115930
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 06:42 AM   #21
Slopes09
Senior Member
 
Slopes09's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here.
Posts: 837
Send a message via AIM to Slopes09
Default

I've had issues with getting MOW pictures in in the past. Can we please get a clear consensus from the screeners on MOW equipment? It seems like many get the PEQ rejection (or the bad motive of the past).

Here's my take on it: I believe that MOW forces represent part of the railroad, and that if RP truly wants to represent the railroad as a whole, MOW should be included, as, without them, the railroad wouldn't run, period. I especially say this as someone who will someday most likely work with them.

Now, I'm not vouching for my shots of the past, I realize many of my attempt of the past were artistically poor.

As for the shot in question, I like the cropped down version. It clearly shows interaction between MOW and railroad crews. And, in the cropped down version, the photographer clearly isn't attempting to focus on the locomotive, but instead on the engine and hi-railer crew. This would negate the "foreground clutter," since the foreground is part of the subject.
__________________
-Mike W.
Railroad Civil Engineer

Pretty much the only Pentax Shooter.

Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Slopes09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 09:00 PM   #22
Crusader
Senior Member
 
Crusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 242
Default

Interesting assortment of MoW acceptances and rejections. I would have agreed about action shots having a better chance of acceptance until I saw the dueling backhoes by 'Northern Limits' (Jim). You don't really get more action than that...yet it got the axe. Puzzling.

I keep most of my MoW shots to myself. I think I have one accepted here, and that's just a Sperry car.

I did try submitting a few in October, showing Amtrak tie replacement on the Keystone Corridor. One in particular I felt was good enough to make it here, but there were repeated objections about the cropping. Funny tho, it was accepted by a well known railroad magazine (fingers crossed until I actually see it in print).
__________________
View my photos on RP.net
Crusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 09:44 PM   #23
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader
Funny tho, it was accepted by a well known railroad magazine (fingers crossed until I actually see it in print).
Once again, RP should not be thought of as the end all for good railroad photography. It's just another, albeit very popular, avenue for sharing ones shot.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.