Another "Bad Cropping" rejection--Why????

[amtrakboy]

Guys,

I have here another photo, rejected for "bad cropping," as well as not enough nose light on the locomotive. I can see the "poor lighting" rejection, but am thoroughly baffled as to why it got shot back for "bad cropping." Plese explain!! All comments/suggestions/criticisms appreciated. By the way, I have numerous photos of rare/unusual/ power,rolling stock, etc., where there was also a problem with back lighting--yet I understand that in many situations, you have to take what you can get, even thought the lighting is less than ideal. That is why I have not posted them.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=349712

[Studogg120]

I think that there is too much space in front of the locomotive. So maybe cut some of that out.

[Ween]

For the bad cropping: probably cropped too tight on the left with too much room on the right (that pole doesn't add anything to the shot). And possibly bad cropping up top; maybe if the nearest tree limbs weren't cut off, it might be visually more appealing...

[JRMDC]

Looks like this one is a good candidate for the "rule of thirds," taking the engine farther away from the center point.

As for up top, it may be too much cropping or it may be too little - to me some of those limbs and trunks are so white that they distract from the engine.

Also, you have had the luck to get a limb growing almost perfectly in line with the blue/gray border on the side and another growing almost perfectly in line with the fold in the metal from the front to the side of the engine. Those are distracting, and if you return to this spot, I suggest concentrating on avoiding those.

[Joe the Photog]

As for cropping, there is too much room on the right. To get the aspect ratio right, you'll probably need to crop some height, but I'm not sure how to do that and not have TOO much train in there. The tree limbs don't bother me much, truth be known. The best thing might be to do to go back to the same spot and shoot just a tad fuirther down the track, maybe trying to keep the shack in the shot above the train and slightly to the right.


Joe

[amtrakboy]

Guys,
I have here another shot I took of the same train above, since I took a series of shots, by way of the Burst Mode on my camera, so I would have several to choose from. While I am sure that the "poor lighting" is still a problem, what you think of this one, taken of the train farther up the tracks, and recropped? I have deliberately downsized the photo to facilitate uploading, so please pardon the quality!!!

[ken45]

Originally Posted by amtrakboy

Guys,
I have here another shot I took of the same train above, since I took a series of shots, by way of the Burst Mode on my camera, so I would have several to choose from. While I am sure that the "poor lighting" is still a problem, what you think of this one, taken of the train farther up the tracks, and recropped? I have deliberately downsized the photo to facilitate uploading, so please pardon the quality!!!

I definitely like the second one better. I need to get a camera with burst mode. It would be pretty handy if, like me, you have trouble deciding when to click the shutter to get the most pleasing result.

[Mike B.]

Aside from the poor lighting and bad crop, the front of the engine is awful blurry. You aren't shooting in AUTO with that D200 are you?

[4kV]

The original might work if the object on the right was more interesting, like a signal or something along those lines. As it is, it's a pole with an electric meter on it.

[amtrakboy]

Camera settings for the above shot: 1/400 sec, f/5.6, JPEG fine, shutter priority, burst mode

[rpl]

You know, the screeners are really stupid. They reject like 60% of photos.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by rpl

You know, the screeners are really stupid. They reject like 60% of photos.

It's probably more like 70-80%, but they do it for a purpose. What do you think the rejection rate at say TRAINS magazine is? Probably 90-95%. Does that mean TRAINS is stupid?

[4kV]

Originally Posted by rpl

You know, the screeners are really stupid. They reject like 60% of photos.

Actually, the screeners are cool. They allow assclowns like you to join up on the site and entertain us all with pathetic displays of immaturity. Keep posting and see if you can continue making yourself look like more of an accident in the moment of passion than you already have.

[a231pacific]

Bill,

I'd give the second shot a try. The composition is much better, the white trees add to the shot and you didn't have to crop too tight on the right. Cutting the pole out of your first shot would have left the nose too close to the edge of the frame.

As far as back lighting is concerned, I happen to like it, even if the screeners usually don't. Back lighting makes the background more interesting and the nose on that Amtrak unit is pretty plain, so there isn't any detail to be lost anyway.

Michael Allen

[bigiron]

Originally Posted by a231pacific

Bill,


As far as back lighting is concerned, I happen to like it, even if the screeners usually don't. Back lighting makes the background more interesting and the nose on that Amtrak unit is pretty plain, so there isn't any detail to be lost anyway.

Michael Allen

Michael,

I too some different variations of shots that the screeners here defer to accept and it is not our site so we have to realize what is preferred here and try to submit shots within those parameters with some stretching if needed . I have plenty of shots that I have taken that the sun wasn't at the right angle to light the front but still like them for my own album and just accept that are NOT accepted as a general rule here. It will take an unusual shot to make it with little or no front lighting, IMO.

Rich Clark

[amtrakboy]

Well guys, I adjusted the brightness/contrast settings on the second photo, and was successful in getting it accepted!! Thanx for all the help/suggestions/criticisms!!!