Old 11-02-2016, 02:03 AM   #1
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default Poor Image Quality?

Two rejections for poor image quality. Taken in RAW nikon 6000X4000. Edited in lightroom and exported at 1200 max long edge. Minimal cropping. Export settings are for highest quality at 240 pixels per inch. Any thughts what is going on to get this rejection? Thanks

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...47&key=8421484
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...46&key=8350492
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 03:40 AM   #2
ATSF666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 119
Default

This is one of the more vexing rejections you can get. The first one the train's nose looks sharp, the police car not so much. What F stop were you using? F 8.0 will get you pretty good depth of field and most likely the police car would have been sharper assuming you were shooting a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera motion.

The second shot looks to me like high sun and a poor angle of to the sun.

I could be wrong on all of the above.
__________________
ATSF666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 12:16 PM   #3
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

I just have a feeling it's something wrong with my export settings or something, considering I just had 8 pictures rejected for this but have not had any issues before... Regardless of each individual picture's deserving to be accepted or not, I just want to know what's causing me to keep getting this rejection.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...73&key=9042826
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...67&key=1804735
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...66&key=5823203

Last edited by Joseph Cermak; 11-02-2016 at 12:22 PM.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 12:21 PM   #4
ShortlinesUSA
Senior Member
 
ShortlinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 795
Default

Both appear somewhat overexposed on my monitor. To resurrect an old "Grumpy's World" term, you got glaref!ked on the second one. I could see adding some saturation and another sharpen to the first one and it getting in; the second one, I'd say no hope with that harsh sun angle.
__________________
Mike Derrick

Shortline and Regional RR forum moderator
ShortlinesUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 12:24 PM   #5
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA View Post
Both appear somewhat overexposed on my monitor. To resurrect an old "Grumpy's World" term, you got glaref!ked on the second one. I could see adding some saturation and another sharpen to the first one and it getting in; the second one, I'd say no hope with that harsh sun angle.
Both fair, but shouldn't these be rejected for overexposed and high seun then? Like I said, I'm not concerned with each individual pictures deserving to be accepted or not, but want to know why I keep getting poor image quality.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 12:33 PM   #6
ShortlinesUSA
Senior Member
 
ShortlinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 795
Default

In a logical world, yes. But as you'll consistently see throughout this forum, the rejections given are often not consistent with what the members consider to be the true issue with the rejected image.
__________________
Mike Derrick

Shortline and Regional RR forum moderator
ShortlinesUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 09:56 PM   #7
jac_murphy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 373
Default

On my end, all the photos are looking quite soft. Apologies for the basic question, but are you doing much in the way of sharpening after resizing the images?

-Jacques
jac_murphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 09:59 PM   #8
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Jacques, I am sharpening in light room to near the maximum amount (~95) before exporting and resizing. Does it make a difference to sharpen after the export?
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 11:36 PM   #9
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

I don't know what it means to sharpen after export - in the software I use one does everything and then save to JPG or whatever. I will say that it is always important to sharpen after resizing, since sharpening has different effects depending on the image size.
__________________
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 11-04-2016, 12:15 AM   #10
jac_murphy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 373
Default

Yup - as a general rule, some sharpening is always needed after resizing. The effect of sharpening is much less pronounced on a full-size image, and downsizing the image will pretty much negate it.

-Jacques
jac_murphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 06:10 PM   #11
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATSF666 View Post
This is one of the more vexing rejections you can get. The first one the train's nose looks sharp, the police car not so much. What F stop were you using? F 8.0 will get you pretty good depth of field and most likely the police car would have been sharper assuming you were shooting a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera motion.
According to the EXIF data, f13.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 07:04 PM   #12
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
According to the EXIF data, f13.
Yeah I wouldn't have known without checking that as this was taken right after I got a DSLR before I started learning to shoot manual.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 08:25 PM   #13
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,074
Red face

I am going to sound very harsh for which I apologize (I'm being a real curmudgeon here), but I would have given all of the images a PEQ or whatever the death knell is around here. I think virtually all of them have composition issues, lighting issues, focus/depth of field problems, or simply lack much interest. I think the screener just picked a convenient rejection button. My suggestion would be to be more selective in what you submit.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 11-07-2016 at 08:30 PM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 09:47 PM   #14
ATSF666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
According to the EXIF data, f13.
Maybe diffraction then. That will soften a photo, too.
__________________
ATSF666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 11:04 PM   #15
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
I am going to sound very harsh for which I apologize (I'm being a real curmudgeon here), but I would have given all of the images a PEQ or whatever the death knell is around here. I think virtually all of them have composition issues, lighting issues, focus/depth of field problems, or simply lack much interest. I think the screener just picked a convenient rejection button. My suggestion would be to be more selective in what you submit.
You're right, a PEQ or the given poor image quality really helps me to improve as a photographer by learning what might be wrong with a particular image. Thanks. (This is sarcasm to be clear)
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 02:28 AM   #16
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

For what it's worth:
Image © mtnclimberjoe
PhotoID: 594986
Photograph © mtnclimberjoe
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 02:31 AM   #17
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
You're right, a PEQ or the given poor image quality really helps me to improve as a photographer by learning what might be wrong with a particular image. Thanks. (This is sarcasm to be clear)
Joseph,

Clearly you've taken offense to John's comment about PEQ's. Take a step back and read his subsequent comments, because there is a takeaway for you in them.

You just started another thread in which you linked eighteen rejections from one week. Are you really learning from these rejections, or are you just shotgunning the site with submissions that you hope will stick? John is right in his comment that you need to be more selective, and in several respects. First, for your own sake, it is suspected by many contributors to the forums that the screeners will judge based on past experience. You can quickly get a reputation for sub-par submissions, and they will tend to reject material that another photographer may get accepted. Second, you've had enough rejections now to see what it is that causes rejections. You need to start being critical of your own photos before you submit them. You need to look at each image and run it past a checklist:
  1. Is the lighting good?
  2. Is everything sharp?
  3. Are noticeable elements blown out or too dark?
  4. Are exposure and contrast correct?
  5. Are there distracting elements that take away from the image?
  6. Does the image have interest?

Then there's the issue of composition, which is, of course, subjective. You use a lot of non-standard aspect ratios, which the screeners have issued PAQ's for in the past.I recommend that you limit yourself to standard ratios. 95+% of my images are 4x6. Stick to the rule of thirds. If there is too much dead space (sky, foreground track, trees that add nothing to the image) consider a different cropping.

Instead of submitting multiple images, try submitting one at a time. Really study each image before submitting it. If an image doesn't meet the checklist above, correct it or move on to the next image.

I really think that you will learn much more by criticizing your own photos and avoiding rejections than by sharing a ton of rejections with the forum.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 12:22 PM   #18
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
Joseph,

Clearly you've taken offense to John's comment about PEQ's. Take a step back and read his subsequent comments, because there is a takeaway for you in them......
I saw his comments about other issues with the images. But as a beginner, I am trying to learn how to see these things in my images. Him saying I should just get a PEQ does not really tell a beginner what is wrong with their images or what could be corrected, which is why I have a problem with it. Without a "real" rejection reason (technical or subjective), I learn nothing from a PAQ. Does that make sense?

If what you say is true regarding a reputation, then I find that rather shocking. I would assume photos are screened without the photographer's name, as that would be a proper way to screen something like this. Alas, it would make sense for the inconsistent site like this to have that issue.

I've also used almost exclusively 4X6 and 16X9 aspect ratios, so I'm not sure what you mean by a lot of non-standard ones. I prefer 16X9 because we live in a world of wide-screens and I like to use these for desktop wallpapers. At the end of the day I only do any of this for fun and really don't care too much about if one guy at RP doesn't like that I use 16X9 ratio or don't follow the rule of thirds for every shot.

Last edited by Joseph Cermak; 11-08-2016 at 12:25 PM.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 01:17 PM   #19
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
I learn nothing from a PAQ. Does that make sense?
We've all received PAQ's for things that we don't understand. That's the subjective nature of photography. I submit images that I fully expect to get a PAQ. Sometimes they are accepted, sometimes they get a PAQ. If they are rejected, I move on, as it is a "killer" rejection.

In the context of John's comment, I don't he was not literally advocating a PAQ for every image. He was saying that most of your images have multiple issues, and a single correctable rejection reason will not give you a clear path to an acceptable image. A killer rejection will more succinctly send a message that the image is a long way from what the screener is expecting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
If what you say is true regarding a reputation, then I find that rather shocking. I would assume photos are screened without the photographer's name, as that would be a proper way to screen something like this.
Really? If you've been reading the forums for as long as you say, you should have picked up on this. This is not the visual version of the "Voice", and I'm not sure why you would expect blind screening. Just ask Dave Hewitt (baggydave in the forums), who has many fine images here, but has somehow gotten on the bad side of the screeners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
I've also used almost exclusively 4X6 and 16X9 aspect ratios, so I'm not sure what you mean by a lot of non-standard ones. I prefer 16X9 because we live in a world of wide-screens and I like to use these for desktop wallpapers.
That may be my mistake, but I could swear that I saw a few images that were outside of those parameters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
At the end of the day I only do any of this for fun and really don't care too much about if one guy at RP doesn't like that I use 16X9 ratio or don't follow the rule of thirds for every shot.
You state that you're a beginner and that you want to learn, but here is an attitude that indicates that you think that you know better than the people that you are asking to teach you. As a beginner, you should stick to the rules, bending them only as you become more proficient. The rule of thirds goes hand in hand with successful composition, and I would bet that well over 90% of the most successful images on RP follow the ROT.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 02:05 PM   #20
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
You state that you're a beginner and that you want to learn, but here is an attitude that indicates that you think that you know better than the people that you are asking to teach you. As a beginner, you should stick to the rules, bending them only as you become more proficient. The rule of thirds goes hand in hand with successful composition, and I would bet that well over 90% of the most successful images on RP follow the ROT.
The point of what I wa saying is that I'm not going to change what I personally like and "shoot for RP." I shoot compositions I find interesting, I shoot on cloudy overcast days, I shoot common power etc etc. I was in no way implying I don't want to learn, but composition is subjective, and I like what I like and shoot for that. I have plenty of things that follow the rule of thirds to the exact that still get rejected for composition (rule of thirds), as well as images with a centered subject that get the same rejection for a purely subjective reason. For example:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...48&key=3725791
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...36&key=5024232
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...29&key=4685382

You are correct in that I know that the screening is not blind, but to me it seems like that is the way it should be, just an opinion though.

There may be a few nonstandard aspect ratios, but if there were then it was not intentional.

With John's comments, I just think that there is a difference between "far from what is expected" and "not able to get to the point of acceptance," which the PAQ is not helpful for learning from.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 02:08 PM   #21
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

16:9 is extremely wide for RP tastes; that format is frequently going to result in a rejection
__________________
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 11-08-2016, 02:09 PM   #22
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
You just started another thread in which you linked eighteen rejections from one week. Are you really learning from these rejections, or are you just shotgunning the site with submissions that you hope will stick? John is right in his comment that you need to be more selective, and in several respects. First, for your own sake, it is suspected by many contributors to the forums that the screeners will judge based on past experience. You can quickly get a reputation for sub-par submissions, and they will tend to reject material that another photographer may get accepted. Second, you've had enough rejections now to see what it is that causes rejections. You need to start being critical of your own photos before you submit them.
THIS, with some bold added
__________________
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 11-08-2016, 02:10 PM   #23
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
16:9 is extremely wide for RP tastes; that format is frequently going to result in a rejection
Thanks, that's good to know. Rather unfortunate in today's world where that is the common ratio for mobile devices and wide-screen monitors, but good to know.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2016, 02:11 PM   #24
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
The point of what I wa saying is that I'm not going to change what I personally like and "shoot for RP." I shoot compositions I find interesting, I shoot on cloudy overcast days, I shoot common power etc etc.
Then accept the rejections! For one, RP doesn't "do" basic shots with cloudy overcast. Enjoy your shooting, sounds like you are, but accept what RP is about and what it isn't. And learn from the former - you are basically getting free critiques from RP screeners; don't waste them, whether or not you end up shooting mostly RP-style shots or very few. You can get a lot better and learn much here.
__________________
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 11-08-2016, 02:17 PM   #25
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Then accept the rejections! For one, RP doesn't "do" basic shots with cloudy overcast. Enjoy your shooting, sounds like you are, but accept what RP is about and what it isn't. And learn from the former - you are basically getting free critiques from RP screeners; don't waste them, whether or not you end up shooting mostly RP-style shots or very few. You can get a lot better and learn much here.
I do accept the rejections? Not sure where I said I didn't, other than that I am often baffled by the composition one. I do attempt to learn from all the rejections and go back to make edits to images based on the rejection reason.
Joseph Cermak 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 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.