I'm a little corn fused

Missabefan · 08-20-2014, 10:01 PM

I submitted these two shots and both were rejected for/with PAQ.

My question: Why?

http://railpictures.net/viewreject.p...76&key=4921584

and

http://railpictures.net/viewreject.p...79&key=7357575

Poor Aesthetic Quality: This rejection means that the photo is of low aesthetic qualities, does not contain enough rail-related content, or is simply not the type of material we wish to publish.

I don't feel like these two shots are the worst the site has ever seen and I guess I don't know why they couldn't be included in the database.

I won't loose sleep over the rejections but I am a little curious what others think as to the reason for the rejection(s). Any thoughts out there?

JRMDC · 08-21-2014, 12:21 AM

Wow, no idea. PAQ button is right next to the accept button?

conrail1990 · 08-21-2014, 12:26 AM

My guess is they want the caboose shown as actively in service or have the photo taken in a fancy way.

CSX1702 · 08-21-2014, 12:51 AM

They are just roster shots of cabooses and roster shots are pretty boring, really. I'm just guessing that was their reasoning. Can you reshoot with more of a scene or do you have other pics?

Mberry · 08-21-2014, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSX1702

They are just roster shots of cabooses and roster shots are pretty boring, really. I'm just guessing that was their reasoning. Can you reshoot with more of a scene or do you have other pics?

Yep, I had 2 boring roster caboose shots accepted just this summer. Confused as to why yours didn't make it.

PhotoID: 491005
Photograph © Michael Berry

PhotoID: 489722
Photograph © Michael Berry

JRMDC · 08-21-2014, 01:31 AM

Boring has NEVER been a criterion for RP rejection.

It may be that they are considered insufficiently perfect for a roster shot, which is held to a higher standard.

Mgoldman · 08-21-2014, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mberry

Yep, I had 2 boring roster caboose shots accepted just this summer. Confused as to why yours didn't make it.

Really? Why?

Oh, lol - logic.

I checked the database - there are already no other pictures of those cabeese on RP. Do we really need another?

/Mitch

bigbassloyd · 08-21-2014, 02:45 AM

The image quality on the first one leaves a fair bit to be desired. I see noise, oversharpened trees, and lacking contrast.

No idea on number 2.

Not exactly sure PAQ is right for the first one, but I would have hit it with something.

Loyd L.

Ron Flanary · 08-21-2014, 05:01 AM

Both shots are excellent, and they should have been accepted.

Because a shot is rejected doesn't always mean it has a flaw. Sometimes you guys are looking for reasons that don't even exist.

Missabefan · 08-21-2014, 05:03 AM

So I'm sensing by the responses that nobody else sees "PAQ' either?

Perhaps not perfect in every technical way but man, give it a fixable rejection and I'll fix it from there and then accept it and move on. I just don't see "PAQ" either for two database shots of a few museum displays featuring one active always coupled and one none active cabeese.

They live on Flickr I guess. They accepted them as is. No questions asked.

miningcamper1 · 08-21-2014, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I see noise...and lacking contrast.

Loyd L.

Really? I tried "Auto Adjust", and it reduced the contrast. And yes, I know Auto Adjust isn't infallible.

And I wish the Noise Police would do us mere mortals a favor each time and tell us where to look!

miningcamper1 · 08-21-2014, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missabefan

So I'm sensing by the responses that nobody else sees "PAQ' either?

Certainly not here! I mean, really, what says "railroad" more than an old caboose??? Even non-railfans like them.

CSX1702 · 08-21-2014, 05:31 AM

For the record, I like them. I was just trying to guess what the reasoning for PAQ may have been.

So if these make it, does that mean I can put this one on?

miningcamper1 · 08-21-2014, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSX1702

For the record, I like them. I was just trying to guess what the reasoning for PAQ may have been.

So if these make it, does that mean I can put this one on?

Why not? It's a nice scene with a fallen flag caboose, and I love old grain elevators.

JimThias · 08-21-2014, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

Both shots are excellent, and they should have been accepted.

Because a shot is rejected doesn't always mean it has a flaw. Sometimes you guys are looking for reasons that don't even exist.

I'm with you. Even in my intoxicated state in my hotel room in downtown Denver, I can see that these shots are just fine. This is one of those times you want to hear the reasoning from the screener.

bigbassloyd · 08-21-2014, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

And I wish the Noise Police would do us mere mortals a favor each time and tell us where to look!

I see noise in the caboose windows, the sky, and in the hole in the building above the roofline of the caboose. I'm not saying it's enough to be a rejection reason, but it's there. You all feel free to debate whether or not it should matter. I stick to what little bit of objective data there is in photography

The presence of noise, and whether or not something is level.

Loyd L.

CSX1702 · 08-22-2014, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Why not? It's a nice scene with a fallen flag caboose, and I love old grain elevators.

PAQ'd.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...06&key=9930039

MagnumForce · 08-22-2014, 02:40 AM

...is simply not the type of material we wish to publish.

Reason enough in my mind.

Then again as roster shots these are less than perfect and IMO roster shots require absolute perfection.

jnohallman · 08-22-2014, 03:40 AM

Apparently at least one screener simply doesn't wish to publish photos of cabeese.

Jon

Mgoldman · 08-22-2014, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

...is simply not the type of material we wish to publish.

Reason enough in my mind.

Exactly.

The fact that other fallen flag preserved examples and museum roster shots were acceptable in the past is irrelevant.

Besides, you already have a shot of a northern line museum piece:

PhotoID: 489435
Photograph © Todd M.

Why would RP (or even you, for that matter) want another in the database!?? That's just crazy talk.

/Mitch

miningcamper1 · 08-22-2014, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Exactly.

The fact that other fallen flag preserved examples and museum roster shots were acceptable in the past is irrelevant.

Besides, you already have a shot of a northern line museum piece:

PhotoID: 489435
Photograph © Todd M.

Why would RP (or even you, for that matter) want another in the database!?? That's just crazy talk.

/Mitch

Absolutely! Bandwidth must be preserved for gems like this:

bigbassloyd · 08-22-2014, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Absolutely! Bandwidth must be preserved for gems like this:

And yet 24 people were moved enough by it to favor it.

There's always someone out there that will like any photo. Where is the line drawn?

At the waters' edge at low tide I guess..

Loyd L.

Mgoldman · 08-22-2014, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

And yet 24 people were moved enough by it to favor it.

There's always someone out there that will like any photo. Where is the line drawn?

At the waters' edge at low tide I guess..

Loyd L.

Well now, not every photo:

I like J. E. Landrum's photo, btw!

/Mitch

bigbassloyd · 08-22-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Well now, not every photo:

I like J. E. Landrum's photo, btw!

/Mitch

Uploaded well before the favorite system was implemented.

I'd dig through yours to find one on you, but I can't stomach looking at your photography for that long.

Your move pan boy.

Loyd L.

Ron Flanary · 08-22-2014, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

...Even in my intoxicated state in my hotel room in downtown Denver, I can see that these shots are just fine....

What's your room number? I need a drink.

I like Landrum's shot of the hand written sign as well. Don't get hung up on the wrong notion that a good railroad image always needs to have a train in it. In fact, the best ones usually don't include a train (IMHO).