Peq ???

[Daniel SIMON]

Is this really PEQ

I personally find this picture much more interesting than the hundreds of standard American diesel roaster shots that are posted on this site, but this is my own opinion.

What do you guys think about this one?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...13&key=6152504

Thanks,
Daniel

[JMC]

It's definitely not a door or a boat, and I can see something with wheels on rail. You might be out of luck on this one

[Chase55671]

Hi Daniel,

To me, it just doesn't display a lot of unique railroad characteristics that make it appealing. While I suppose subjective, it just doesn't do a ton for me personally. My 0.2 cents.

Chase

[troy12n]

Not a fan. Just because they let doors and boats on doesnt mean anything is fair game.

[Chris Z]

Looks like the driver is using the steering wheel to back up. I find this critter interesting and would like to see this in the data base. Not railroady enough? It does ride on rails.

Chris Z

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

Hi Daniel,

To me, it just doesn't display a lot of unique railroad characteristics that make it appealing. While I suppose subjective, it just doesn't do a ton for me personally. My 0.2 cents.

Chase

Since when does appeal have anything to do with acceptance?

It's a railroad related subject and in my opinion much more appealing then a plethora of diesel wedgies under gratified overpasses, yard shots, or nondescript locations surrounded by telephone poles. And easily as interesting as some doors, notes and spikes.

I think it could be considered rather frustrating to play utilizing a set of inconsistent rules. There are dozens (likely upwards of 100) trackmobiles on RP already - why single one out, one as unique as this?

I'd drop it down in the frame a bit to avoid "bad crop" and then might even consider bringing back the last RP craze and adding a slight vignette to make the colors pop a bit more. Very slight, but some.

Good luck!

/Mitch

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Since when does appeal have anything to do with acceptance?

It's a railroad related subject and in my opinion much more appealing then a plethora of diesel wedgies under gratified overpasses, yard shots, or nondescript locations surrounded by telephone poles. And easily as interesting as some doors, notes and spikes.

I think it could be considered rather frustrating to play utilizing a set of inconsistent rules. There are dozens (likely upwards of 100) trackmobiles on RP already - why single one out, one as unique as this?

I'd drop it down in the frame a bit to avoid "bad crop" and then might even consider bringing back the last RP craze and adding a slight vignette to make the colors pop a bit more. Very slight, but some.

Good luck!

/Mitch

Thanks Mitch and Chris for your encouraging comment. I will let it sleep a few days, rework it and submit it again.

[jac_murphy]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

Hi Daniel,

To me, it just doesn't display a lot of unique railroad characteristics that make it appealing. While I suppose subjective, it just doesn't do a ton for me personally. My 0.2 cents.

Chase

A Romanian Ford van MacGyvered to run on the tracks, complete with a cowcatcher, doesn't display "unique railroad characteristics?"



I do have one honest critique, Daniel, and that's that it looks a bit overexposed (whites blown out) to me - but other than that, I think it's pretty neat.

-Jacques

[Ween]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

...much more appealing then a plethora of diesel wedgies under gratified overpasses...

I imagine you can get some tact sharp images under those satisfied overpasses...

[CSX1702]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

To me, it just doesn't display a lot of unique railroad characteristics that make it appealing. While I suppose subjective, it just doesn't do a ton for me personally. My 0.2 cents.

Chase, if you screened this one, you really shouldn't be rejecting it if it's just unappealing to you. That seems to be the problem with the screening process. We're conforming to your standards.

And I say this because it seems that there's some of us who would like to see this pic on the site.

[MagnumForce]

So a nondescript door is honky dory? But this? And people wonder why so many people have issues with consistency here.

[Insert_Name_Here]

Originally Posted by CSX1702

Chase, if you screened this one, you really shouldn't be rejecting it if it's just unappealing to you. That seems to be the problem with the screening process. We're conforming to your standards.

And I say this because it seems that there's some of us who would like to see this pic on the site.

Why shouldn't he reject it? Why is it that when and if Chase rejects a photo you think should be accepted, it's wrong? Last time I checked you weren't a screener.

Now, you say "We're Conforming to his standards." How dare someone who helps runs this site do such a thing.

BTW, you have to 'conform' to the screeners on this site in the first place when you put your photo's in the queue for screening too.

[Chase55671]

My first time seeing the image was Daniel's link in the forum. I didn't screen the photo. The PEQ rejection is unquestionably one of the most discussed rejection reasons on the website. Whether it's understanding why an open cab door is unacceptable, trying new techniques when it comes to abstract detail, or even some of the oddball depth of field and nighttime photos, the PEQ rejection is one of the most discussed rejection reasons on the site.

Sometimes corrections, whether in the form of processing, composition, or re-taking the photo entirely can influence that PEQ. It simply depends on the subject material, how it's captured, and the pros and cons with its aesthetic quality. Years ago, when I first attempted to expand on paying attention to abstract details and some of the oddball pieces of equipment or scenes, I immediately became familiarized with the "bad motive" rejection. It was fun and exciting to see whether my efforts were well received and it helped educate me on areas of improvement while also giving me a general idea of what subject material the site wished to publish.

In this specific case, the railroad characteristics I'm referring to is the lack of detail in the scene. This photo is more or less a roster shot of a unique piece of equipment, but not a ton of surrounding railroad elements to support the scene. The driver of the vehicle is making a reverse move presumably. Why not adjust the composition and capture more of the background to show us the trackage?

From a technical standpoint, roster photos should be captured under ideal lighting. This photo seems like it was captured under diffused lighting and the exposure itself is slightly overblown. It's cropped tightly, as mentioned.

Does the current composition, exposure, and crop of the photo influence its aesthetic quality? Is the subject of equal technical quality as others in the database of its kind? I like the subject, but I almost feel like it's cut short. I want to see more of the scene, the terrain in the background, and the type of trackage this unique piece of equipment is operating on.

I encourage the documenting of unique pieces of infrastructure, scenes, and details, but I think that when attempting to capture outside of the box subjects, you need to nail the technical processing of the photo and be sure to include as many supporting elements as possible to enhance your efforts. Again, these are my personal thoughts.

I like the effort, but I want to see more. If I did happen to screen the photo, would I allow my personal opinion to influence whether or not it was acceptable? No. My job is to remain consistent with the screening process that has been well established for many years. If the photo was of a subject that I had absolutely no interest in, but was among the relevance of what the site accepts, the image would be acceptable as long as it met the technical requirements. I feel as if that goes more or less without saying.

Hope this helps provide some background on my initial statements.

Chase

[CSX1702]

Originally Posted by Insert_Name_Here

Why shouldn't he reject it? Why is it that when and if Chase rejects a photo you think should be accepted, it's wrong? Last time I checked you weren't a screener.

Now, you say "We're Conforming to his standards." How dare someone who helps runs this site do such a thing.

BTW, you have to 'conform' to the screeners on this site in the first place when you put your photo's in the queue for screening too.

You totally missed the point. I'm saying that if he rejected it because he personally didn't like it, then he shouldn't be doing that. Which doesn't even matter anymore because he didn't screen it.

And I'm talking about conforming because some of us on here like the picture which means it really doesn't have poor esthetics. But in the eyes of whoever screened it (not Chase,) it did.

[CSX1702]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

I like the effort, but I want to see more. If I did happen to screen the photo, would I allow my personal opinion to influence whether or not it was acceptable? No. My job is to remain consistent with the screening process that has been well established for many years. If the photo was of a subject that I had absolutely no interest in, but was among the relevance of what the site accepts, the image would be acceptable as long as it met the technical requirements. I feel as if that goes more or less without saying.

Hope this helps provide some background on my initial statements.

Chase

Well that's good to hear, lol. And I have to say, it's refreshing to actually see a screener's input for once.

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by CSX1702

You totally missed the point. I'm saying that if he rejected it because he personally didn't like it, then he shouldn't be doing that. Which doesn't even matter anymore because he didn't screen it.

And I'm talking about conforming because some of us on here like the picture which means it really doesn't have poor esthetics. But in the eyes of whoever screened it (not Chase,) it did.

We don't screen images based on our personal interests and preferences. We follow the rules of the screening process and remain as consistent as possible with the established system, even if the subject material doesn't always interest me personally.

That'd be compared to rejecting photos of Union Pacific locomotives because I dislike their shade of yellow. Not true, merely an example. You all see the point.

[cblaz]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

That'd be compared to rejecting photos of Union Pacific locomotives because I dislike their shade of yellow.

So that's why all my shots of UP engines never make it on. Time to go on Facebook and start the rumor that Chase never accepts UP shots because the whole site's a giant conspiracy.
/sarcasm

- Chris

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by cblaz

So that's why all my shots of UP engines never make it on. Time to go on Facebook and start the rumor that Chase never accepts UP shots because the whole site's a giant conspiracy.
/sarcasm

- Chris

I thought you disappeared! I'm glad you're still around, even if as sarcastic as always!

Chase

[MagnumForce]

PEQ is the death knell, the don't even attempt again, according to what you said this was more a bad crop or exposure then?

[jac_murphy]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

In this specific case, the railroad characteristics I'm referring to is the lack of detail in the scene. This photo is more or less a roster shot of a unique piece of equipment, but not a ton of surrounding railroad elements to support the scene. The driver of the vehicle is making a reverse move presumably. Why not adjust the composition and capture more of the background to show us the trackage?

From a technical standpoint, roster photos should be captured under ideal lighting. This photo seems like it was captured under diffused lighting and the exposure itself is slightly overblown. It's cropped tightly, as mentioned.

Does the current composition, exposure, and crop of the photo influence its aesthetic quality? Is the subject of equal technical quality as others in the database of its kind? I like the subject, but I almost feel like it's cut short. I want to see more of the scene, the terrain in the background, and the type of trackage this unique piece of equipment is operating on.

Ah, now that does make more sense. Thanks.

-Jacques

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by Daniel SIMON

Is this really PEQ

I personally find this picture much more interesting than the hundreds of standard American diesel roaster shots that are posted on this site, but this is my own opinion.

I probably would not come to this site and put down nearly half of the shots they accept here in an attempt to get your accepted. I tell folks that there shots should stand or fall on their own merit, that each and every one of us could look a few pages deep in teh database and find a shot that compares to our most recent reject... proving what? That screenign is subjective? An exact science? OK. I'll grant you that.

Originally Posted by Chase55671

To me, it just doesn't display a lot of unique railroad characteristics that make it appealing.

That's confusing to me. It's a railroad truck on railroad tracks. I might could see a Bad Cropping reject, but not PEQ. Not to belabor the point, but this is a site that has accepted a piece of paper on a window, a door and a boat on the water. I guess I'm doing the same thing Daniel did, but I don't get the PEQ in this case. It's actually rather stupid to give PEQ to a shot that has some very specific railroad material here.

Originally Posted by jac_murphy

A Romanian Ford van MacGyvered to run on the tracks, complete with a cowcatcher, doesn't display "unique railroad characteristics?"

Haha! Yeah, that's kinda where I stand!

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

PEQ is the death knell, the don't even attempt again, according to what you said this was more a bad crop or exposure then?

No, it's not. I've appealed a few PEQs and had them accepted. I've reoworked one or two as well. It might be harder to overcome a PEQ, but it's not impossible.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

In this specific case, the railroad characteristics I'm referring to is the lack of detail in the scene. This photo is more or less a roster shot of a unique piece of equipment, but not a ton of surrounding railroad elements to support the scene. The driver of the vehicle is making a reverse move presumably...

From a technical standpoint, roster photos should be captured under ideal lighting. This photo seems like it was captured under diffused lighting and the exposure itself is slightly overblown. It's cropped tightly, as mentioned.
I like the effort, but I want to see more.

If I did happen to screen the photo, would I allow my personal opinion to influence whether or not it was acceptable? No. My job is to remain consistent with the screening process that has been well established for many years. If the photo was of a subject that I had absolutely no interest in, but was among the relevance of what the site accepts, the image would be acceptable as long as it met the technical requirements. I feel as if that goes more or less without saying.

Chase

Chase - good to see you back in the Forums and welcome as always your thoughts so well laid out.

However - in regards to what I've changed to bold lettering:

PhotoID: 452482 Photograph © Daniel SIMON

Originally Posted by Chase55671

We don't screen images based on our personal interests and preferences. We follow the rules of the screening process and remain as consistent as possible with the established system, even if the subject material doesn't always interest me personally.

: ) - Welcome back, Chase, lol!

/Mitch

[bigbassloyd]

Why is it that most of the 'interesting' photographs are taken in such crappy lighting?


Loyd L.

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Why is it that most of the 'interesting' photographs are taken in such crappy lighting?


Loyd L.

Only to make sure that the number of views stays below 10000 the first day

Glad to see that this one has been accepted.
Daniel