Need Opinion, Please

firemanbeetle · 09-09-2015, 02:38 PM

This photo has been rejected and adjusted numerous times for.............bad cropping (adjusted), bad "rule of thirds" (understood and adjusted), object too close to borders (adjusted), object not far enough from borders (adjusted), bad lighting (adjusted). You name it, it's bad. Yet I've found other shots in the database, that are strikingly similar. And some that are nowhere near as good as mine. I've found shots with much worse lighting, details hidden by shadows, bad sharpness, etc. I've had shots rejected before, and, after looking at them, usually agreed with the screeners. That's not the case this time. Can someone please tell me what the heck is going on?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...87&key=7689416

KevinM · 09-09-2015, 03:24 PM

Steve,

That particular frame does look a bit soft on my display. The screener asked that the image not be resubmitted and I would comply. I usually use the 3-strike rule. If after 3 attempts, I cannot get something the screener will accept, I move on. Resubmitting the same image, over and over, especially something that is a simple wedge-roster (no scenery, no human interest, etc.), is how many RP contributors end up in the doghouse with the site (limited uploads, no appeal process, or even banned).

I'd let it go.

JRMDC · 09-09-2015, 05:11 PM

This is a standard roster shot, and RP tends to want those to be technically perfect (in the dimensions RP cares about). It is definitely soft as I can see it and I am usually the last to notice.

Also, the sky is extensively pixellated. One can see blocks of lighter and darker blue shades. That is something you should figure out, figure out how it got there and how to avoid it, as that is going to hold you back on RP acceptance - and in other venues where selectivity is an issue.

As advice on retaining you sanity, I suggest that you never, ever, compare your shots to those already on the database, or in any way try to infer RP consistency. Therein lies madness.

Freericks · 09-09-2015, 06:49 PM

Image is soft. Picture quality is poor (possibly from overworking it in Photoshop and not saving at the highest level?). Nose door is open. Engine is not quite fully font lit.

The last two you would get away with on an action shot, but roster shots are held to a higher standard.

The first one cannot be fixed. The second one can only be fixed if the issue is in the editing.

troy12n · 09-09-2015, 07:24 PM

Yeah, this one is not good, let it go

miningcamper1 · 09-09-2015, 11:51 PM

So if this is indeed Poor Image Quality, why was that not the first rejection?

Greg P · 09-10-2015, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

So if this is indeed Poor Image Quality, why was that not the first rejection?

Welcome to RP.net.

Freericks · 09-10-2015, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

So if this is indeed Poor Image Quality, why was that not the first rejection?

Because they go through the queue quickly (have to in order to get through it all) and will click one button on what they see as wrong and then move on.

KevinM · 09-10-2015, 03:54 AM

I think Charles pretty much hit the nail on the head. The photo queue can be 50 - 100 shots deep. That means if you are lucky, you get about 10 seconds worth of the screener's time. The screeners have seen hundreds of thousands of photos, so they know what to look for. They also get to know the names on the photos they see, so they know what each of our stuff looks like. Once they see a condemning issue, they hit the first appropriate button and move on. Otherwise, they'd spend all night getting through the queue.

miningcamper1 · 09-10-2015, 05:12 AM

Yet they somehow seem to remember if an uncorrected image has been re-submitted, or a member has appealed too often.

Freericks · 09-10-2015, 05:33 AM

In the first case, I'd assume they pull up the last submission and compare (if they suspect an uncorrected upload).

In the second case, um, duh...

miningcamper1 · 09-10-2015, 07:31 PM

"If you are submitting a previously rejected photos with corrections made, please be sure to post a note to the screeners using the "Comments to Screeners" field below letting us know what you've done to improve the image."

So, assuming the would-be contributor wrote something in the box, either the screener didn't read it, or read it and issued the death sentence anyway.

Freericks · 09-11-2015, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

"If you are submitting a previously rejected photos with corrections made, please be sure to post a note to the screeners using the "Comments to Screeners" field below letting us know what you've done to improve the image."

So, assuming the would-be contributor wrote something in the box, either the screener didn't read it, or read it and issued the death sentence anyway.

Is this a real instance or a hypothetical?

If the correction was posted in the note, and was made, and the image was rejected as an uncorrected re-upload, then there has clearly been an injustice.

miningcamper1 · 09-11-2015, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

Is this a real instance or a hypothetical?

If the correction was posted in the note, and was made, and the image was rejected as an uncorrected re-upload, then there has clearly been an injustice.

Post #10 was just examples. #13 was specific to the OP's shot, but applies to others as well. It's no secret that Chris K frowns on open nose doors (as do I). So here we have common power in a generic location with the nose door open. Hard to believe it didn't occur to the first screener to PAQ it right away and not waste the contributor's time and effort with the rejection-go-round.

Freericks · 09-11-2015, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Post #10 was just examples. #13 was specific to the OP's shot, but applies to others as well. It's no secret that Chris K frowns on open nose doors (as do I). So here we have common power in a generic location with the nose door open. Hard to believe it didn't occur to the first screener to PAQ it right away and not waste the contributor's time and effort with the rejection-go-round.

In a perfect world - but I think they move too fast for that.

I've had the same frustration quite a few times, by the way. Fix this, fix that, fix this other thing, then get hit with an unfixable rejection. Used to freak me out. Now I let it slide (usually). What else are you going to do?