PEQ rejection -- thoughts on appealing?

[DWHonan]

It's been a while since I last posted here. Life takes strange twists once you give a ring to a girl.

Anyway, a few weeks ago I was in Scotland on my honeymoon and captured the following shot of the Forth Bridge at twilight:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...98&key=4465109
The only reason I can figure for why it got PEQ'd is that there isn't a train in the scene; even if there was, given the immensity of the bridge it would take a sharp viewer to find it amongst all that steel (they generally run short trains of DMUs). Rail infrastructure photos aren't uncommon on RP -- after all, this site is (supposedly) dedicated to "railroad photography," not merely "train photography." What are your thoughts on appealing vs. letting it go, and if you think an appeal is warranted, what justification(s) would you use?

Thanks,
-Dave

[JRMDC]

My inclination is no. It is a very nice image, a beaut. But I think that infrastructure shots without trains on RP tend to have some sort of a rail dimension. For example, a station shot, it shows the whole station, the purpose of the station is or was to serve trains and passengers. One doesn't tend to see, say, a fragment of a station. That sort of composition tends to emphasize architectural issues over rail issues.

So here, a full span shot might be acceptable, it is a railroad bridge (are there any no-train-present bridge shots on RP?). By contrast, your shot is a shot of structural detail with artistic merit. In doing so you have removed the railroad-ness, the connectivity from A to B across C.

To me a high-rail on the track is fine - don't see too many of those on RP! - but a high-rail on the interstate highway is not, even if it has a clear RR logo. Or a 53' IM container sitting at a non-rail served warehouse. Something along the lines of these thoughts is why I think this is not RP-material.

I suspect I wouldn't even care for a shot of a full rail bridge sans train for RP, but it is a matter of taste, and here, a matter of RP criteria, which are not mine.

[DWHonan]

I'm at work and don't have time for a fully-considered rebuttal, but here are a few examples of "no-train-present bridge shots on RP" from my collection:

PhotoID: 292569 Photograph © David Honan

PhotoID: 296503 Photograph © David Honan

PhotoID: 280060 Photograph © David Honan

PhotoID: 374339 Photograph © David Honan

I'm sure there are others out there.

[JRMDC]

Re shots, cool

Re "rebuttal," I'm not arguing with you, I am not laying out facts or non-facts to rebut, just offering a view. You can't touch me!

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

I'm at work and don't have time for a fully-considered rebuttal, but here are a few examples of "no-train-present bridge shots on RP" from my collection:
I'm sure there are others out there.

I think Janusz was right in suggesting that, because the rejected photo shows only a portion of the bridge (not even a majority of the structure), the chances of getting RP to take it on appeal are slim. The other shots you chose show either the whole bridge structure, or the vast majority of it. Having said that, it's RP's loss in rejecting the photo - it is indeed a beauty of a shot!

Jon

[CSX1702]

Part of the rejection reason may be, in addition to not having the whole bridge, may be that in your other "no train" trestle shots, you can tell that they are/ were railroad trestles. In the rejected picture, you can't really tell that it is a railroad bridge.

[jac_murphy]

Originally Posted by CSX1702

Part of the rejection reason may be, in addition to not having the whole bridge, may be that in your other "no train" trestle shots, you can tell that they are/ were railroad trestles. In the rejected picture, you can't really tell that it is a railroad bridge.

You can't tell that one of the most famous - and recognizable - railroad bridges in the world is a railroad bridge?

-Jacques

[CSX1702]

Well I didn't recognize it. And Railpics is a fairly U.S. dominated site. Lol. But even if one did recognize it, the features of it being a railroad, like the tracks, are not visible.

[DWHonan]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

My inclination is no. It is a very nice image, a beaut. But I think that infrastructure shots without trains on RP tend to have some sort of a rail dimension. (snip) One doesn't tend to see, say, a fragment of a station. That sort of composition tends to emphasize architectural issues over rail issues.

Thanks, J. But what precludes an architectural issue from also being a railroad photograph? This unique structure absolutely screams "I'm a railroad bridge!" -- no other type of conveyance requires such massive supports carrying a perfectly level deck. (OK, except for canal bridges, but they're so rare and relatively small compared to this example as to be negligible.)

Originally Posted by JRMDC

So here, a full span shot might be acceptable

There are already at least two full-length shots of the 1.57-mile-long bridge in the database; I wanted to present a different view of the bridge showcasing its most distinctive element, the cantilever structure.

Originally Posted by JRMDC

You can't touch me!

Hey, you're right -- you're in Maryland and I'm in (the other) Washington!

Originally Posted by jnohallman

The other shots you chose show either the whole bridge structure, or the vast majority of it. Having said that, it's RP's loss in rejecting the photo - it is indeed a beauty of a shot!

Thanks, Jon. What I'm trying to get at here is that the whole bridge doesn't need to be presented; one-sixth of it is sufficient to convey the message that it's a ridiculously massive railroad bridge, an impression of scale that gets lost when one goes wide to incorporate the whole thing.

Originally Posted by CSX1702

But even if one did recognize it, the features of it being a railroad, like the tracks, are not visible.

That argument doesn't hold water because you also can't see the deck in the four examples I provided -- not to mention that three of those bridges are abandoned, so they aren't even "a railroad" anymore.

Thanks for the feedback, guys; I'll give some thought as to whether an appeal is warranted. I'll also look through the other photos I took to see if I can find something worth posting so that massive caption I wrote isn't wasted.

[JimThias]

As with the others, I'd like to see more of the bridge, especially with the light and color contrasts that a wider-captured scene would create.

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

What I'm trying to get at here is that the whole bridge doesn't need to be presented; one-sixth of it is sufficient to convey the message that it's a ridiculously massive railroad bridge, an impression of scale that gets lost when one goes wide to incorporate the whole thing.

This is a perfectly accurate statement, and one that unfortunately has nothing to do with the standards that RP has set for what they want to include on their site. As I said earlier, their loss.

Jon

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

This unique structure absolutely screams "I'm a railroad bridge!" -- no other type of conveyance requires such massive supports carrying a perfectly level deck.

Good insight, but I didn't have that instinct to make that connection so I heard no scream.

There are already at least two full-length shots of the 1.57-mile-long bridge in the database; I wanted to present a different view of the bridge showcasing its most distinctive element, the cantilever structure.

Kudos! In terms of RP as currently constituted, oh well.

Thanks, Jon. What I'm trying to get at here is that the whole bridge doesn't need to be presented; one-sixth of it is sufficient to convey the message that it's a ridiculously massive railroad bridge, an impression of scale that gets lost when one goes wide to incorporate the whole thing.

A good point!

Thanks for the feedback, guys; I'll give some thought as to whether an appeal is warranted. I'll also look through the other photos I took to see if I can find something worth posting so that massive caption I wrote isn't wasted.

You know, I think most people actually are not that close to ending up in the dungeon of too-many-appeals. I suspect you are not one of the few who are on the verge of getting the RP boot. You feel strongly about it, appeal! Go for it! The issue here is simple, RP has a range of types of shots it likes to see, yours is outside that range, you have your reasons as to why it belongs anyway. Appeal, they agree with you or not. What else matters at this point?

[DWHonan]

Thanks for the discussion and encouragement, all the "J" guys who responded. Politely offering a well-reasoned argument for why the photo was worthy of inclusion worked:

PhotoID: 413645 Photograph © David Honan

[crazytiger]

I was about to post a response saying that I thought it warranted inclusion. I went back to take second look at the rejected photo and it wasn't there. Apparently, appealed and accepted.

PhotoID: 413645 Photograph © David Honan

Great shot, Dave!

Edit: Ninja'd

[Hatchetman]

Maybe the screener just forgot who you were.

BTW if you think life changes when you get married, you ain't seen nothing 'til the kids come along!

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

Thanks for the discussion and encouragement, all the "J" guys who responded. Politely offering a well-reasoned argument for why the photo was worthy of inclusion worked:

Congratulations on getting them to see reason!

Jon

[CSX1702]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

That argument doesn't hold water because you also can't see the deck in the four examples I provided -- not to mention that three of those bridges are abandoned, so they aren't even "a railroad" anymore.

Not what I meant. I meant that with the other pictures, it is a lot easier to see that the bridge or trestles are/ were railroad trestles. With the new shot, never seeing that bridge before, I would not be able to set it apart from a road bridge. But don't get me wrong, I think this is a great picture, I was just trying to maybe think in terms of what RP would want. But since they accepted it, yeah my statement doesn't mean anything anymore.

[MasCoRailbuff]

Guess they didn't spot the "dog mess" Very pretty pic, glad to see it on!

[DWHonan]

Thanks, guys!

[JimThias]

David, did you also take a wider shot? I'd love to see the full scene showing the contrast of color and lighting with the surroundings.

[DWHonan]

Originally Posted by JimThias

David, did you also take a wider shot? I'd love to see the full scene showing the contrast of color and lighting with the surroundings.

That's like asking a politician if he shook somebody's hand today. I'll dig out and post one of the wide shots this weekend.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

That's like asking a politician if he shook somebody's hand today. I'll dig out and post one of the wide shots this weekend.

I do like your accepted shot, but I'd love to see the full bridge in all its glory with the lighting you experienced that evening.

[jac_murphy]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I do like your accepted shot, but I'd love to see the full bridge in all its glory with the lighting you experienced that evening.

Might this help?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinan...in/7277884868/

-Jacques

[DWHonan]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I do like your accepted shot, but I'd love to see the full bridge in all its glory with the lighting you experienced that evening.

Here ya go! This is likely cropped a bit too pano for RP's purposes (1.65:1); I'll try uploading a somewhat squarer shot once enough time has passed that I (hopefully) won't be at risk of a similar-to-previous rejection.



Have I mentioned there was also a spectacular sunrise the next morning?



We actually had great weather for most of our visit to Scotland; it wasn't until the last couple days that we (mostly me -- Cortney smartly stayed in the car) got rained upon.

[JimThias]

Wow...awesome. Well done, sir! Thanks for sharing.