This drives me crazy

[Mberry]

Am I the only one who is driven crazy by rp screeners who reject photos one or two times for fixable issues and then after those issues are fixed, reject photos for reasons that are not fixable? (i.e. PEQ, poor lighting)

I submitted a photo that I knew was very borderline in terms of nose light, but I wanted to try it out.

On the first attempt I got these rejections:
- Horizon Unlevel: Try leveling the image in your photo editing software.
- Overexposed

On the second try the only rejection was horizon unlevel.

I level it (again) and submit it a third time and only THEN do I get this rejection, which is of course final and not fixable. But why didn't they just say that the first time?

-Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough light on the nose or visible sides of the subject.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...75&key=3592398

[troy12n]

That's a very common complaint. And one which will never be "fixed"

[conrail4129]

Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't bang you for either bad cropping or distracting shadows with the trees and power lines.

[MDH]

First of all, that's a good shot by most "normal" standards - you have at least half a nose of light on the CN and most of the VIA nose and it's an interesting scene. I might have done a little looser crop (a little more sky and on the left) but that's nit-picky. Put it on Flickr or enjoy it in other ways. For rp.net, it's a marginal shot because it's a "normal wedgie" with less than perfect lighting. As to the sequence of rejects - yes, ideally if they are going to give it a killer reject, that's what they should start with - but part of that could be a function of running up against different screeners with one thinking it was fixable and another not.

Regards,
Michael

[Freericks]

Michael pointed out what I was going to say, but I'll reiterate - not to excuse the doling out of frustration that this causes (I've been the victim of it myself many, many times) but it is most likely a change in screeners. I can't imagine it does the screener any good to keep seeing a shot he's going to reject no matter what and yet keep giving it "fixable" pass reasons. That being said, you never know. They screen fast and may just hit the easier button to find.

[Mberry]

Yes, I figured it was just a different screener, just needed to vent! Guess I have to get used to this, as you all have....

For the record, the shot is on flickr, along with some before and after shots that of course would not pass muster on rp.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtlwest...n/10675288114/

[Mberry]

So persistence can pay off..... I figured I'd try this shot later on and see what happens. And it got accepted!

PhotoID: 460268 Photograph © Michael Berry

[JimThias]

Screener roulette. I thought it deserved to be in the first time around. It appears at least one screener shared that sentiment.

[Mgoldman]

Everyone complains about the inconsistency of this site, yet, rejecting images which are later accepted is pretty consistent on RP. I for one applaud the screeners for taking this first step towards consistency.

In all seriousness, you could've had one screener give you rejections with merit and a second screener give you his own fresh and valid additional rejection. The problem is that what is acceptable to one screener, seems at times, wildly different then that of another. In many cases - it's like submitting to 5 unique sites instead of one site with 5 screeners playing with the same set of guidelines. And then there are there are the rejections that seem so insane that personal bias enters the realm of plausible explanation. Other then that, what a great site, right?


/Mitch

[Mgoldman]

Incidentally, I think Michael is on the ball with his explanation - or thoughts, that is.

Initial thoughts - image is heavily weighted with a subject to the extreme left - cropping into the yellow MOW would be what you would think RP wanted, on an assumption you had no room to bring back to the left. Also, the subject is a bit
centered - bringing it lower might help and might give you an unchopped tower.

Shame comments from the screener is only used two or three times a year, between all five screeners.

/Mitch