Old 10-10-2020, 04:01 AM   #1
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 521
Default Really?

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...36&key=9585251
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 06:38 AM   #2
John Russell - NZ
Senior Member
 
John Russell - NZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 138
Default

Looking good I say. Flickr it and I will fave it.
John Russell - NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 08:56 AM   #3
miningcamper3
Junior Member
 
miningcamper3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 27
Default

I too like the photo, but I think the screener took a hard look at the bridge railing where it has the power's trucks and fuel tanks for a background.
And what's the clutter? Lots of RP photos have branches at left or right foreground. Too bad the screeners rarely respond to questions.

Last edited by miningcamper3; 10-10-2020 at 12:11 PM.
miningcamper3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 12:11 PM   #4
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper3 View Post
I too like the photo, but I think the screener took a hard look at the bridge railing where it has the power's trucks and fuel tanks for a background.
And what's the clutter? Too bad the screeners rarely respond to questions.
Not calling out the photographers, but almost every shot from these two bridges should have been rejected if the railing is clutter.

Image © Grady F. McKinley
PhotoID: 533068
Photograph © Grady F. McKinley


Image © Joe Osciak
PhotoID: 741724
Photograph © Joe Osciak
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.

Last edited by Decapod401; 10-10-2020 at 04:15 PM.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 11:51 PM   #5
TedG
Member
 
TedG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Perry Hall, MD
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
Not calling out the photographers, but almost every shot from these two bridges should have been rejected if the railing is clutter.

Image © Grady F. McKinley
PhotoID: 533068
Photograph © Grady F. McKinley


Image © Joe Osciak
PhotoID: 741724
Photograph © Joe Osciak
A valid point. I know you use it sparingly, but this screams for an appeal.
/Ted
TedG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2020, 01:40 PM   #6
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 423
Default

I have never understood why bridge railings get applied as foreground clutter, especially when it seems to be applied to randomly.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2020, 01:53 PM   #7
EMTRailfan
Senior Member
 
EMTRailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: I can be found railfanning the abandoned B&O Northern Sub.
Posts: 1,461
Default

I don't know if it is the bridge railings as much as it is the low angle making the bridge itself cut off a portion of the trucks. Great location with some distance cut the low angle maybe?
__________________
A Picture Is Worth 1000 Words. A Memory Is Worth 1000 Pictures.
EMTRailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2020, 03:34 PM   #8
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 858
Default

1) I don't see over sharpening
2) I ngeneral I don't believe in excluding images due to obstructions that are part of the railroad unless they really detract from the overall image
3) it is a pleasant image, the bridge is as much or more the subject with the train being secondary
4) while there are excellent images submitted, every day I see many accepted images which are devoid of any interest that I can see, ie totally generic, even tho they comply with the rules

Bob Jordan

Last edited by RobJor; 10-12-2020 at 07:26 PM.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2020, 07:28 PM   #9
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 521
Default

Thanks everyone for your comments!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ View Post
Looking good I say. Flickr it and I will fave it.
It's been on Flickr for two days. Where's your fave?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMTRailfan View Post
I don't know if it is the bridge railings as much as it is the low angle making the bridge itself cut off a portion of the trucks. Great location with some distance cut the low angle maybe?
A valid point that I have overlooked, but there is a wall of trees behind me, preventing a more distant view. There is a small riverbank and island that yield a more broadside angle, but do not correct this issue:

Image © Duncan Mara
PhotoID: 723406
Photograph © Duncan Mara


Nothing wrong with this photo, but the same "obstruction" exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedG View Post
A valid point. I know you use it sparingly, but this screams for an appeal.
/Ted
Not going to waste an appeal. Clearly it wasn't "worthy".

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
1) I don't see over sharpening
Me either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
5) Here you have an excellent photographer, a great contributor, I am not speaking for how Doug will react, but for others these rejections can wear you down to the point you just lose interest and move on. I don't think it is an ego thing or having a snit, just.....

Bob Jordan
Thanks for the props, and very perceptive, Bob. This kind of crap is making RP less and less fun. After two knee replacements, this is the most ambitious photo that I've attempted since rekindling my photography interest. It's about a 15 minute walk in on private property to a not-well-known location, and I gave up several well-lit but more common scenes to get this. By the time I caught up to the train, it was at a point in the route that was backlit before heading into inaccessible territory for a while.

I have no problem with valid technical rejections, and I correct them to make a better image. I'm well aware that the backstory has no effect on the image, but I was stoked that I had "not just another R&N image" when I submitted it. This marginal BS just pissed me off, and I haven't posted anything since. While I haven't decided to walk away from RP yet, I am considering it.
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2020, 08:17 PM   #10
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 858
Default

Doug, I actually deleted that last part because even with the disclaimer I didn't want to stake out a position for you, so interesting we feel the same. The photographer of the other view may think the dunkin donut reference in the copyright is cute but detracts and trivializes the work.

Bob

Last edited by RobJor; 10-12-2020 at 08:23 PM.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2020, 01:43 AM   #11
miningcamper3
Junior Member
 
miningcamper3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 27
Default

"...excessive sharpening, meaning that straight lines (such as handrails, edges, and cheatlines) often appear very jagged...."

Again, I do like the photo, but I suspect that the screener found the bridge railings lacking in smoothness.
miningcamper3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2020, 02:23 AM   #12
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper3 View Post
"...excessive sharpening, meaning that straight lines (such as handrails, edges, and cheatlines) often appear very jagged...."

Again, I do like the photo, but I suspect that the screener found the bridge railings lacking in smoothness.
I received several undersharpened rejections for non-slide images in the past, and I now have a preset for a moderate amount of sharpening that has never been rejected. Looking closely at the railings in LR and removing all sharpening, I saw a marked improvement, so I now agree that the oversharpening rejection is valid. That, of course is a correctable error, but the obstruction is a killer, and sends a clear message that the correcting the technical rejection will not result in acceptance.
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2020, 03:05 AM   #13
miningcamper3
Junior Member
 
miningcamper3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
...the obstruction is a killer, and sends a clear message that the correcting the technical rejection will not result in acceptance.
Yet elsewhere they are tolerating large, out-of-focus leaves and branches in the foreground, and (worst of all!) big watermarks right in the middle of otherwise good photos. The mind boggles!

Last edited by miningcamper3; 10-13-2020 at 03:07 AM. Reason: addition
miningcamper3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2020, 02:51 PM   #14
need2foam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
Default

That is a fantastic bridge. You don't get to see structures like that here in the Midwest.
need2foam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2020, 03:31 PM   #15
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by need2foam View Post
That is a fantastic bridge. You don't get to see structures like that here in the Midwest.
It is very unique - see the caption in the photo below.

Image © Doug Lilly
PhotoID: 643978
Photograph © Doug Lilly
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2020, 05:56 PM   #16
need2foam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
It is very unique - see the caption in the photo below.

Image © Doug Lilly
PhotoID: 643978
Photograph © Doug Lilly
Fascinating. Thanks
need2foam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2020, 09:58 PM   #17
TedG
Member
 
TedG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Perry Hall, MD
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
It is very unique - see the caption in the photo below.

Image © Doug Lilly
PhotoID: 643978
Photograph © Doug Lilly
I once dated a woman with pierced spandrels. No wait...

Seriously, thanks for the architecture lesson.

/Ted
TedG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 10:04 PM   #18
John Russell - NZ
Senior Member
 
John Russell - NZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 138
Default

[quote=Decapod401;196917]Thanks everyone for your comments!

It's been on Flickr for two days. Where's your fave?

Sorry Doug. I didn't realize that I wasn't following you. I'm keen to see some more of your recent photography. I like your photo composition. Have a go at re-submitting the photo in question here, if you haven't already. The response on flikr says enough IMO.
John Russell - NZ 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 12:08 AM.


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