Old 01-08-2005, 06:43 PM   #1
Ken Carr
Senior Member: Vegasrails
 
Ken Carr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Henderson Nevada
Posts: 285
Default Snow photos to dark

These photos were rejected for being to dark, I appealed two of the three and again they were rejected but with no additional reason nor suggestion was given.
So since the screeners and owners of this site have had their say let's hear from the rank and file what failings or improvements if any I can make to my first snow photos submitted to this site. Thanks for any suggestions Ken

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81408
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81400
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81434
__________________
Regional Coordinator for Operation Lifesaver
Southern Nevada and Southern Utah

See what I do for fun along the rails and in the desert

See some of my slide shows


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Ken Carr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2005, 07:57 PM   #2
dsktc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 268
Default

Ken, for 81408 the light is marginal at best. 81434
is clearly too dark. 81400 suffers from a washed out
sky, but it's not a bad shot. I would have thought
an appeal of this would be successful.

Dave
__________________
Dave Kerr
dsktc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2005, 09:44 PM   #3
E.M. Bell
Senior Member
 
E.M. Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Salvisa, Kentucky
Posts: 471
Send a message via MSN to E.M. Bell Send a message via Yahoo to E.M. Bell
Default

i Didnt screen these, but I will offer my opinion...


http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81408 Certainly to dark, and the focus is off a bit (at least to my eye)..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81400 I kinda like this one personaly. It could stand a little tighter crop to get rid of that dead space to the left, and maybe a little adjustment to the color saturation..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81434 Waaayyyy to dark. In these kind of conditions, it is hard to judge the available light and get it right, and dont always belive what the light meter says.. There is a chance that with a tighter crop and some serious adjustment of the levels that this one might be saved..

I am jealous Ken...yall get snow in the desert, and its been in the 60's here in KY...somethings just wrong with that
__________________
E.M. Bell, KD4JSL
Salvisa, KY


http://www.jreb.org
NS Fourms http://jreb.org/ns
E.M. Bell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2005, 11:02 PM   #4
JButler
Member
 
JButler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 92
Default

I may have to go with the screener on the third one.....can't believe I said that On my monitor it just looks dark.
I like the first two. But I like shots that show all types of weather and lighting. I really like 81400!
__________________
Jim Butler

Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
JButler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2005, 11:25 PM   #5
David Telesha
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For 81400, crop some of the excess sky out as well.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 01:16 AM   #6
Guilford350
Senior Member
 
Guilford350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Terryville, CT
Posts: 542
Default

I like 81400, too. Just crop it a little tighter. Crop up to the signal on the left and just a bit on the right and top.
Guilford350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 04:04 AM   #7
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default Oh, Please! Not this again.

Okay, I'll tell you what I see:

Photo 81408 is poorly composed. I don't think a crop can save it, but I might be wrong.
Photo 81400 is fine. It doesn't need any cropping, and, if anything, it's a tad too bright.
Photo 81434 needs a crop.

Usually I don't pay any attention to what gets rejected from this site - plenty of it is trash that deserves to be canned. But here I see some photos that are actually interesting. I'm getting *really* tired of the junk that somehow gets accepted.

The photographer, Mr. Carr, has 240 photographs already on this site. It's not as if he shot plenty of acceptable shots and then took some sort of dive.

Rather, his shots are interesting to me because they capture the *spirit* of railroading. They don't play by the rules, they don't fit the pattern, but they are visual proof of the rugged nature of railroading. With only a little cropping I feel that these shots could all be acceptable.

Perhaps these photos don't fit on this site, where every image must fit an abstract opinion about what is "quality" railroad photography, but don't underestimate their potential when it comes to representing *real* railroading.

I'm not wild about the advice from the "rank-and-file." The suggestions are excellent if you want to produce cookie-cutter work that is already far in excess on this website.

With a little cropping, I'd be pleased to say that I had taken such a photo. Don't be discouraged when it comes to finding new angles and new approaces. If the world of railroad photography had only this site, life would be awefully boring, predictable, and staid.

(For full disclosure: I've never submitted any shots to this site and I never intend to. This is not some 'revenge' nonsense because one of my photos was rejected.)
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 04:31 AM   #8
dsktc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 268
Default

John, you are correct that Ken is a very competent
photographer. I always enjoy looking at his photos.

However, to suggest that all three of these rejected
images "capture the 'spirit' of railroading" and are
"visual proof of the rugged nature of railroading" is just
absurd. 81434, for instance, is a poor photograph by
any reasonable standard, whether it's cropped or not.

I agree with you that contributors here should be more
imaginative and creative. But being imaginative and
creative doesn't mean you can completely ignore the
fundamentals of proper exposure, good composition
and an interesting subject.

Dave
__________________
Dave Kerr
dsktc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 04:57 AM   #9
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsktc
John, you are correct that Ken is a very competent
photographer. I always enjoy looking at his photos.

However, to suggest that all three of these rejected
images "capture the 'spirit' of railroading" and are
"visual proof of the rugged nature of railroading" is just
absurd. 81434, for instance, is a poor photograph by
any reasonable standard, whether it's cropped or not.

I agree with you that contributors here should be more
imaginative and creative. But being imaginative and
creative doesn't mean you can completely ignore the
fundamentals of proper exposure, good composition
and an interesting subject.

Dave
I actually think that 81434 is the strongest of the three. There is too much empty space on the left, but the overall mood and character of the photo are excellent. It's the type of creative shot that I'd like too see on this website, but the screeners seem to have a perverted idea of what trackside reality is.

The truth is that the railroads operate in all kinds of weather - day or night, sunshine or clouds. It's a lie to pretend that the railroads only run when the light is best, when the power is clean and properly lined up, and through the most perfect scenery.

Now, I'm not a fan of trashy, backlit, cluttered, out-of-focus, or dark photos, but I do wish that rrpictures would at least be capable of embracing somewhat artistic work.

Thinking creatively and producing work that is non-traditional is part of developing a style. At worst, 'creative' photos can end up in the trash can, but the best of them expand the traditional limits of railroad photography. Without such attempts, we'd be stuck with an endless parade of dull wedge shots of Dash-9s.

I'd love to hear what you think about this one: http://home.cwru.edu/~sjl5/lothesbg.jpg

Is it art? Or is it compelling imagery that is produced by someone willing to push the limits and break with the traditional? Or is it just another blurry, dark photo that belongs in the can?
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 04:58 AM   #10
Joe
Senior Member
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 355
Send a message via AIM to Joe
Default

Only one (or two) cloudy snow shot(s) is(are) allowed per person, I think. Otherwise it has to be sunny w/snow.
Or, it's just completely random, favoring REJECT.

You'll see that my statement is mostly correct. http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?category=6

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=90132 Seriously...
__________________
Joe LeMay

Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 05:14 AM   #11
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe
Only one (or two) cloudy snow shot(s) is(are) allowed per person, I think. Otherwise it has to be sunny w/snow.
Or, it's just completely random, favoring REJECT.

You'll see that my statement is mostly correct. http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?category=6

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=90132 Seriously...
My, goodness! Only one or two cloudy shots per person! If I had bothered to submit to this site, I'd have used up my allowance a long time ago with shots like:

http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/im....8.2004-06.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/tf/TF_11.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/jo...s/WEST_044.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/jo...s/WEST_051.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/im....16.2004-2.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/im....4.2004-12.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/allegheny/im...20.2004-27.jpg

I don't remember reading about *that* rule. Does anyone really believe that a decent photographer can't do any good on a cloudy day?

Now, if they could only reject those repetitive Dash-9 shots ...

FWIW, interesting switch-stand shot. Is that as creative as it gets around here?
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 05:20 AM   #12
Ken Carr
Senior Member: Vegasrails
 
Ken Carr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Henderson Nevada
Posts: 285
Default Thank you all

Thank you all your suggestions, ideas and comments. I like to tell you that some of your ideas worked for the Cima Hill shot of the autorack but it was rejected a third time for being undersharpen.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81613

But thank you all once again for your comments, ideas and suggestions. I'll keep submitting, so I'm sure you'll see more of my photos in the future.

Ken
__________________
Regional Coordinator for Operation Lifesaver
Southern Nevada and Southern Utah

See what I do for fun along the rails and in the desert

See some of my slide shows


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Ken Carr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 08:33 AM   #13
Silagi
Banned
 
Silagi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 35
Default

Dont worry Ken, I too got my own too dark reject today. Yeah it was sunset and yeah it had just finished raining. Normally I would not have uploaded a shot taken in these conditions but I thought the shot of a passenger train racing a freight train was kind of neat.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81773
Silagi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 09:34 AM   #14
VRE Man
Member
 
VRE Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manassas, Va
Posts: 50
Send a message via MSN to VRE Man Send a message via Yahoo to VRE Man
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsktc
John, you are correct that Ken is a very competent
photographer. I always enjoy looking at his photos.

However, to suggest that all three of these rejected
images "capture the 'spirit' of railroading" and are
"visual proof of the rugged nature of railroading" is just
absurd. 81434, for instance, is a poor photograph by
any reasonable standard, whether it's cropped or not.

I agree with you that contributors here should be more
imaginative and creative. But being imaginative and
creative doesn't mean you can completely ignore the
fundamentals of proper exposure, good composition
and an interesting subject.

Dave

Hmmmmmmmmmmm This looks a lot like the storm chasers forums over on the WX-Chase List....... Maybe we should talk this one over in photography-politics...LOL I mean so many people have a difference of opinion this could drag on for years in debate...
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!


Click Here to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!
VRE Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 06:26 PM   #15
Skater
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 9
Send a message via AIM to Skater Send a message via Yahoo to Skater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silagi
Dont worry Ken, I too got my own too dark reject today. Yeah it was sunset and yeah it had just finished raining. Normally I would not have uploaded a shot taken in these conditions but I thought the shot of a passenger train racing a freight train was kind of neat.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=81773
That's a great shot. Are you considering appealing it?

--RJ
Skater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 08:51 PM   #16
Silagi
Banned
 
Silagi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
That's a great shot. Are you considering appealing it?

--RJ
Not really. I took a chance uploading that one. I know the powers to be at RP do not like cloudy day shots. They have to really like a cloudy day shot for them to accept it even if a shot is properly exposed. They really should add a new rejection catagory to replace the Poor Lighting (Too Dark) for these kinds of shots. They should be called "We dont like cloudy day shots"
Silagi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 09:02 PM   #17
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

What? They don't love cloudy day shots? However could that be?

I wonder how they can explain these?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=87114
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86884
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=88056
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86443

And if they don't like shots of one train passing another under cloudy skies, I wonder where this one came from:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86409

It's one thing to say that they have the *best* railroad photos on the net, but whether they actually do is another matter entirely. And being consistent? Hah.

I'd suggest you appeal your photo, Mr. Silagi.
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 02:00 AM   #18
Guilford350
Senior Member
 
Guilford350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Terryville, CT
Posts: 542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan
What? They don't love cloudy day shots? However could that be?

I wonder how they can explain these?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=87114
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86884
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=88056
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86443

And if they don't like shots of one train passing another under cloudy skies, I wonder where this one came from:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86409

It's one thing to say that they have the *best* railroad photos on the net, but whether they actually do is another matter entirely. And being consistent? Hah.

I'd suggest you appeal your photo, Mr. Silagi.
I really don't see anything wrong with those photos. And as far as consistency goes, well, I think the screeners do a great job. You have got to realize that the screeners are human and humans make mistakes. It takes six screeners to look through roughly 96,000 photos per year and to only make a few mistakes or misjudgments out of those 96,000 photos is quite an accomplishment.
Guilford350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 02:51 AM   #19
cmherndon
Banned
 
cmherndon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lawrenceburg, KY
Posts: 883
Send a message via AIM to cmherndon Send a message via Yahoo to cmherndon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan
For full disclosure: I've never submitted any shots to this site and I never intend to
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan
]And being consistent? Hah.
If you're not uploading and have no intentions of uploading, then I suggest you don't complain about the screening. It all boils down to one simple fact. Good photos get in, bad ones don't.
cmherndon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 04:17 AM   #20
quiksmith10
Senior Member
 
quiksmith10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Norman, OK / Frederick, MD
Posts: 269
Send a message via AIM to quiksmith10
Default

Lets do some math, shall we. Roughly 96,000 photos a year divided by 360 days equals about 267 photos a day. Divided by 6 screeners comes out to about 44 photos for each day. Give and take it changes from day to day but that is a pretty easy load. They shouldn't make as many "mistakes" as they do. Yeah, humans make mistakes but you have to keep in mind, some of there mistakes are repetative.

As far as it boiling down to one simple fact, its really not as fine of a line as you make it out to be. I think that is why people are becoming upset because that is how the screeners are screening. They aren't looking at the middle ground. A lot of shots that should be accepted, don't get, because they are in that middle area.
quiksmith10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 04:44 AM   #21
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan
For full disclosure: I've never submitted any shots to this site and I never intend to
Then why are you here and why do you care? Make your point elsewhere and enjoy the photos in the database. If you can do it better, then do it. You serve no purpose with your comments here...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 05:21 AM   #22
JButler
Member
 
JButler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 92
Default

I have admired Ken Carr’s photos before this thread. I have seen a few excellent Ken Carr shots rejected. He has taken some beautiful night shots of UP trains with the Los Vegas strip in the background. I was impressed, but the screeners were not.

Of the three in question here, my computer may not be giving 81434 a good view. But I like the other two. Subjective cropping “opinions” aside, they are interesting shot of railroading in other than sunny circumstances. Why this is considered unfavorable by the site owners/screeners is a mystery to me.

I think this brings up the reoccurring issue of consistency, since there are, of course, cloudy, rainy and snowy day shots here. The question that bothers so many is, why one gets in and later, a similar photo does not. At the risk biting the hand……..well....you know, I have had some overcast day photos accepted
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=88023
only to have others rejected,
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos...cat=500&page=1
oh well.

If the goal is to have mostly sun-to-your-back photos, the new motto for the site, the “Best Railroad Photos on the Net” should be changed to the “Best Fair Weather Railroad Photos on the Net.”

Caleb and Ween,
Keep in mind that what is a good or bad photo is basically a matter of opinion. You don’t have to upload photos here to have an opinion. I have not figured out what makes one persons opinion more valuable than another, so why would you begrudge someone their say? Is RPnet’s position so weak that some members need to circle the wagons every time someone voices a complaint? I don’t think so. But, I think RPnet, as good as site as it is, should subdue the arrogance and look into making some changes in the way it answers criticism.
I have seen photos that I thought were very good get rejected, and some that I thought were fair at best get accepted. That doesn’t mean I am right and the screeners wrong, but on the other hand, there is no guarantee that the screeners are right and the complainers here wrong.
__________________
Jim Butler

Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
JButler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 05:39 AM   #23
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
I have not figured out what makes one persons opinion more valuable than another, so why would you begrudge someone their say?
When the person's purpose in posting is to stir the pot, their opinion loses validity. It would be like a Democrat going to a Republican forum and posting just to make waves....
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2005, 07:00 AM   #24
cmherndon
Banned
 
cmherndon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lawrenceburg, KY
Posts: 883
Send a message via AIM to cmherndon Send a message via Yahoo to cmherndon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quicksmith10
Lets do some math, shall we. Roughly 96,000 photos a year divided by 360 days equals about 267 photos a day. Divided by 6 screeners comes out to about 44 photos for each day. Give and take it changes from day to day but that is a pretty easy load. They shouldn't make as many "mistakes" as they do. Yeah, humans make mistakes but you have to keep in mind, some of there mistakes are repetative.
44 a day for each screener? On average, and in a perfect world, yes. In reality, no. The truth is that not all screeners are available all the time, and on occasions, there is just one screener taking care of all photos uploaded in a single day. I know two screeners personally (and no, that doesn't give my photos any preference as I am still subject to the same criteria everyone else is) and one has told be that between the two of them, nearly 500 photos were screened on Sunday alone. There's more to the site than screening photos. There is also e-mail, corrections, appeals, comments, etc. which are also processed on a daily basis. There's more going on than you actually realize.
cmherndon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2005, 01:01 AM   #25
dsktc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 268
Default

As good as the site is, Jim Butler and John Ryan have
correctly observed that RP.Net is not perfect. There is
occasional inconsistancy amongst the screeners
as well as an expectation from too many contributors
that every poorly lit or mediocre photo deserves
to be accepted.

Human nature being what it is suggests
mistakes will still be made by the screeners
who, I emphasize again, do this part time
and have families, jobs, and lives beyond
RP.Net.

So, lest we begrudge the screener for another
rejection, we the contributors should be darn
sure that we've learned how to take a photograph
and to process it correctly.

Because it is our photographic skills that are
displayed on these pages, we ought at least
to be competent in our craft. To that end,
see what you can learn from the best photographers
on this site, buy a photography book, learn how to use
Photoshop or Elements and ask questions.
And don't take each rejection as a personal
affront.

We all, at least we should, have more
important things to worry about in this complex
and fragile world.

Dave


Quote:
Originally Posted by JButler
Is RPnet’s position so weak that some members need to circle the wagons every time someone voices a complaint? I don’t think so. But, I think RPnet, as good as site as it is, should subdue the arrogance and look into making some changes in the way it answers criticism.
I have seen photos that I thought were very good get rejected, and some that I thought were fair at best get accepted. That doesn’t mean I am right and the screeners wrong, but on the other hand, there is no guarantee that the screeners are right and the complainers here wrong.
__________________
Dave Kerr
dsktc 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 03:41 AM.


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