PAQ another time

[Daniel MINACA]

Hi all,

just to share the picture, here another PAQ rejection even if mentioned in the comment, only 4 of these cranes have been built for SNCF so it's a rare picture...
Look at today the recent validated shots, some are really PAQ and taken this year... so it is not exceptional shot !
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...07&key=9860503
By the way I'm already banned of rejection

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by Daniel MINACA

Hi all,

just to share the picture, here another PAQ rejection even if mentioned in the comment, only 4 of these cranes have been built for SNCF so it's a rare picture...
Look at today the recent validated shots, some are really PAQ and taken this year... so it is not exceptional shot !
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...07&key=9860503
By the way I'm already banned of rejection

Hi Daniel,

To my opinion, this picture deserves to be added to the database. It shows an interesting piece of historical material.

Bien amicalement,
Daniel

[Decapod401]

I think that the issue is he cut off idler car. Do you have another frame with the entire flat car included?

[Daniel MINACA]

Hi all,

Thanks Daniel !

@Doug: thanks for the reply, yes I have it but subject is the Crane and not the car even if mentioned in the comments... I will retry soon with a larger cropping but I guess that is not the rejection subject !

[Joseph Cermak]

I could maybe see the cut off car being the problem, but it doesn't bother me too much. I would like to see the shot added, its decent documentation of the crane.

[Daniel MINACA]

Thanks for support guys but this is a bad game !
That's clear from screeners choices, they don't wants this kind of material in RPN database !
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...30&key=2072432
No comments.

Just an idea: Why RPN members could not vote when a picture is appealed by the author of the rejected picture ?

Just an idea !

[bigbassloyd]

Maybe from the other end so the crane is more prominent?

Loyd L.

[Daniel MINACA]

It's enough !
I will not insist anymore.
It's discouraging to propose documents and to write comments !

[TedG]

Thanks for support guys but this is a bad game !
That's clear from screeners choices, they don't wants this kind of material in RPN database !
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...30&key=2072432

Daniel,
I certainly didn't have a problem with the first submission, but I agreed with Doug and Joe that the truncated idler car may have been the killer.

Now I'm really at a loss to explain.
/Ted

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Maybe from the other end so the crane is more prominent?

Loyd L.

I am good with the photo also, is unusual and provides detail and don't see PAQ:

However, I was curious enough to type in crane and see what has been accepted.

Static roster shots-
Most are somewhat wider view and also as Loyd suggested from the "cab" end or at least wide enough to provide detail along the whole system.

Also submitted in color.

I am also curious why it was submitted in black and white, I suppose to give that 1940's look? but as a roster shot I don't think we are aiming for artistic but rather presenting information and think although the crane is black, a color view is really what it is roster wise in 2007. Maybe a problem with color view??

Anyway when I google this I found mostly photos of models and learned a little about the company. Also I think this is considered a steam rescue crane?

Bob Jordan

[Grewup on the CW]

It is MOW equipment and while some has been accepted, I feel RP just does not want this material/subjects in "their" database regardless how well its documented or presented even though it is just as much a part of railroading as the locos we photograph.