Old 02-16-2009, 12:52 AM   #26
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

I think the light look like they are floating because they were lassoed to desaturate the tree behind them.

I also didn't start this to have him banned. He has a style liked by many. I just know that using select color is way out of bounds and many have had shots like it pulled. I should have just emailed the admins my concern. If the whole shot was color I would be able to deal with it.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 12:54 AM   #27
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f.18 View Post
Well, wouldn't the light from the street lights, headlight on the train, and the light on the bulb at least give some sort of light on the string?
No. Have you ever hung up lights on a tree before and then looked at them from a distance?
__________________
.
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 02-16-2009, 12:55 AM   #28
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

Don't celebrate Christmas, so no



Also, take a look at the Photo Submission guidelines. This is obviously not authentic, and is highly digitally manipulated. Beyond just cloning a cloud out, or turning a headlight on. This image takes manipulation too far.

Most of Gary's photos are very strange looking... several look fake. Here is one for example:

Image © Gary Knapp
PhotoID: 240052
Photograph © Gary Knapp


That grass, it's so yellow. Those stars look unnatural, and, wouldn't the flash have totally blown the stars out? Also, those buildings look like they were shot @ daytime.. they are SO bright! And the trees behind that church are even still illuminated. And, there is practically no reflection from the flash on the engine. Coincidence?

Last edited by f.18; 02-16-2009 at 01:05 AM.
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 01:02 AM   #29
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f.18 View Post
Don't celebrate Christmas, so no
Ah, ok. Well I wouldn't get hung up (haha) too much on the floating lights. In most cases you won't see the strand of dark wire that they are attached to.
__________________
.
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 02-16-2009, 01:13 AM   #30
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I'm more concerned about who did such a crappy job with the Christmas lights on that tree. I mean, really...lights on the bottom, lights on the top, and a big gap in the middle? Christmas light hanging FAIL.
Well, never know with Knapp, the lights are probably fake too.
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 01:15 AM   #31
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
Well, never know with Knapp, the lights are probably fake too.
Next thing will be flying unicorns...
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 01:18 AM   #32
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f.18 View Post
Next thing will be flying unicorns...
Didn't you see the original? He had cloned those out... Figured it'd be "Photo Manipulation" with them in.
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 01:20 AM   #33
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
Didn't you see the original? He had cloned those out... Figured it'd be "Photo Manipulation" with them in.


Ok. Close the thread. This is the one that makes this thread an epic win.
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:19 AM   #34
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
You know, makes me want to take my Shadows & Highlights tool, take the Darken Highlights, pull it to 100% and then submit the shot, hey, it should be accepted if this shot was.

This crap really pisses me off.
I agree 100% with this quote, Steve, but you were discussing the wrong photo. That should have been directed to Travis' shot that Ween posted above.

Image © Travis Dewitz
PhotoID: 271011
Photograph © Travis Dewitz


Slowly, but surely, the overuse of the Shadow/Highlight tool has been increasing with some of the posters to RP. I think some screeners have forgotten this rejection option:

- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.

The Shadow/Highlight tool has a place in photos, as I use it when needed, but this is extreme.

While I'm ranting, let get an opinion on it. Below is a shot I uploaded in December that was rejected. Rejection e-mail below, agree or disagree:

Photo ID 622945 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Reading & Northern
Locomotive: Steam 4-6-2

Reason(s) for Rejection:

- Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.
- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.


- Chris
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	RN 5033-425-3050 at Port Clinton shop.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	128.2 KB
ID:	3774  
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:28 AM   #35
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

Chris, I agree. Whilst the backlit part does not bother me, the image just looks... well... hmm, kind of like a low contrast HDR.. if that makes sense.
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:30 AM   #36
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post
While I'm ranting, let get an opinion on it. Below is a shot I uploaded in December that was rejected. Rejection e-mail below, agree or disagree:

Photo ID 622945 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Reading & Northern
Locomotive: Steam 4-6-2

Reason(s) for Rejection:

- Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.
- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.


- Chris
Rejection: agree

Reason: hard to say. The basic problem in the shot is that the tonality is completely flat. The engine on the left in particular hardly separates from the building behind it, making it look a little goofy. The building, in turn, is the same tone as the vegetation behind it. I don't see much in the shot in the way of blacks. There are a lot of flat surfaces that are really smooth, suggesting overuse of noise reduction. Primarily I'd say it is a mix of poor contrast to some extent but mostly just a poor BW conversion. No offense.

Maybe the color mix just isn't there to get anything better ...
__________________
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 02-16-2009, 03:32 AM   #37
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

And might I add the focus sucks
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:38 AM   #38
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post
I agree 100% with this quote, Steve, but you were discussing the wrong photo. That should have been directed to Travis' shot that Ween posted above.

Image © Travis Dewitz
PhotoID: 271011
Photograph © Travis Dewitz


Slowly, but surely, the overuse of the Shadow/Highlight tool has been increasing with some of the posters to RP. I think some screeners have forgotten this rejection option:

- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.

The Shadow/Highlight tool has a place in photos, as I use it when needed, but this is extreme.

While I'm ranting, let get an opinion on it. Below is a shot I uploaded in December that was rejected. Rejection e-mail below, agree or disagree:

Photo ID 622945 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Reading & Northern
Locomotive: Steam 4-6-2

Reason(s) for Rejection:

- Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.
- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.


- Chris
Your shot looks like the highlight tool was used, do to the lightness and flat look. My shot has had no highlight/shadow tool used on it. Double processed raw image. Trust me, I see the over processed rejection plenty of times.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:40 AM   #39
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f.18 View Post
And might I add the focus sucks
and loss of detail in the highlights (steam).
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:48 AM   #40
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post

Slowly, but surely, the overuse of the Shadow/Highlight tool has been increasing with some of the posters to RP. I think some screeners have forgotten this rejection option:

- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.

The Shadow/Highlight tool has a place in photos, as I use it when needed, but this is extreme.

While I'm ranting, let get an opinion on it. Below is a shot I uploaded in December that was rejected. Rejection e-mail below, agree or disagree:

Photo ID 622945 was rejected from the database.
Railroad: Reading & Northern
Locomotive: Steam 4-6-2

Reason(s) for Rejection:

- Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject.
- Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.


- Chris
Chris, your not the only one.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=643194&key=0
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:10 AM   #41
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
Travis, I don't mean to pile on, but seriously, how do you think a shot like that looks:

a) Good?

b) Real?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:25 AM   #42
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f.18 View Post
And might I add the focus sucks
Hmm, I don't see any of your shots in the database.
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:31 AM   #43
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
Travis, I don't mean to pile on, but seriously, how do you think a shot like that looks:

a) Good?

b) Real?
It doesn't. I get PC screen eyes from working on the same shot too long. It takes me a couple of days of not seeing it to realize how crappy, fake, and clay like it is. I agree with the rejection completely.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:35 AM   #44
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
Travis, I don't mean to pile on, but seriously, how do you think a shot like that looks:

a) Good?

b) Real?
Agree! Between what looks like sun (?) coming through the nuclear sky, and the nose of the unit looks like sandpaper. I would love to see the original.
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 06:29 AM   #45
DelmonteX
Senior Member
 
DelmonteX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 214
Default

Interesting thread! Even more so, the photo that started the thread has been removed.

So the million dollar question is: Did Gary pull it or...?
__________________
Steve Carter
Headquartered in the Puget Sound (well off to one side)

My Railpictures.net photos


My other photos
DelmonteX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:11 PM   #46
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DelmonteX View Post
Interesting thread! Even more so, the photo that started the thread has been removed.

So the million dollar question is: Did Gary pull it or...?
Gary doesn't lurk these forums (As far as I know), so I'm guessing one of the Chrises did it
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:11 PM   #47
f.18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
Hmm, I don't see any of your shots in the database.
That's right, but that doesn't mean I can't point out a flaw in a photo.
f.18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 03:27 PM   #48
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DelmonteX View Post
Interesting thread! Even more so, the photo that started the thread has been removed.

So the million dollar question is: Did Gary pull it or...?
It was the or option.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:26 PM   #49
M.L.Gabert
Senior Member
 
M.L.Gabert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 121
Default

Yep, this one give's me a chuckle.

Image © Gary Knapp
PhotoID: 262095
Photograph © Gary Knapp
M.L.Gabert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:37 PM   #50
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F40PH271 View Post
I normally don't even bother looking at his photos anymore due mainly to what Steven said. I finally clicked this one after everyone said how fake it looks. And wow, that might be the worst one yet. I mean, it is just horrible.
100% agreed. EVERY SINGLE one of his shots should have been rejected for a multitude of reasons - bad color, over processing, digital manipulation, too much nose. The fact that any of his shots get accepted is a total joke and it validates everything the haters say about the site. Here are three humdingers I randomly selected from his last 15, it doesn't really matter which ones you pick, they're all a joke:

Image © Gary Knapp
PhotoID: 262350
Photograph © Gary Knapp

Grain in the sky is so big, you can literally individually count them... assuming you wanted to count that high.

Image © Gary Knapp
PhotoID: 250161
Photograph © Gary Knapp

Not only does the black 'night sky' change color seven times from the center to the right edge, the point were the color changing is insanely over pixelated.

Image © Gary Knapp
PhotoID: 246103
Photograph © Gary Knapp

If you want a good laugh cut, paste and side by side the sky two inches above the engine/church to the sky about a 1/4inch above it. I don't think I could have made a more obvious halo effect if I tried.

What compounds one's frustration is that while these crap shots are making it into the database, it seems like ticky tacky rejections are picking up. Screener consistency has always been a problem on the site, unfortunately the gap seems to be ever increasing rather than improving.

Last edited by jdirelan87; 02-16-2009 at 05:42 PM.
jdirelan87 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 11:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.