Old 03-17-2007, 01:10 AM   #1
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default Another "Bad Cropping" rejection--Why????

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
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 01:22 AM   #2
Studogg120
Senior Member
 
Studogg120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 195
Default

I think that there is too much space in front of the locomotive. So maybe cut some of that out.
Studogg120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 01:23 AM   #3
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

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...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 02:03 AM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

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.
__________________
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 03-17-2007, 03:03 AM   #5
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

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
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 05:24 AM   #6
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default How's this one--a recropped version?

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!!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Amtk169 copy.JPG (208.5 KB, 210 views)
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 05:39 AM   #7
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

Quote:
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.
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 10:07 AM   #8
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

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?
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 02:30 PM   #9
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

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.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 06:39 PM   #10
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default Camera settings

Camera settings for the above shot: 1/400 sec, f/5.6, JPEG fine, shutter priority, burst mode
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 09:48 PM   #11
rpl
Banned
 
rpl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rhinebeck,NY
Posts: 33
Default Screw the screeners

You know, the screeners are really stupid. They reject like 60% of photos.
rpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 09:51 PM   #12
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
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?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 09:54 PM   #13
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.

Last edited by 4kV; 03-17-2007 at 10:11 PM.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:41 PM   #14
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

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
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 08:24 PM   #15
bigiron
Senior Member
 
bigiron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedford, NH
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
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
bigiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 06:57 AM   #16
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default It got in!!

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!!!
amtrakboy 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 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.