Old 05-09-2014, 11:21 PM   #1
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile Anatomy of a rejection

The recent discussion has rekindled my curiosity as to what is actually wrong with this image, is it really unsharp in a way that I can't see and need to educate myself about, or is it just a boring image that got rejected for a spurious reason.

The image was rejected both initially and on appeal for not being sharp. As best as I can tell, enlarging the hi rez tif version to actual pixels, it looks very sharp to me. I converted it to jpg, resized, and resharpened as I normally do. If it had been rejected as an uninteresting, even boring image, I could understand that, it is basically a wedgie of common leased power with some green grass and a few puffy clouds in the sky. But it was one of the few decent images I had gotten on a trip to the Canadian maritimes because of rain, flooding, and overcast. While I would be the first to agree this is not a great picture, it seems at least as interesting as some of the other wedgies that get accepted.

I'm just curious, no big deal. Clearly at least two people didn't think the image was RP-worthy for whatever reason. That's fine with me.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CBCNStrurotwo1004.jpg
Views:	191
Size:	808.0 KB
ID:	8587  
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 05-10-2014 at 12:22 AM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 11:40 PM   #2
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

I'm a stickler for sharpness and that image looks perfectly OK to me. Might be more beneficial to view the actual RP reject, but short of a screener using the wrong rejection, I'd say this is a fine example validating the thought that RP nitpicks.

And though it is a simple wedge, it's certainly one of the better ones with the clouds, lighting and tree off to the right.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 12:20 AM   #3
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile

The reason for my curiosity about the sharpness issue, is digital technology has changed things a bit. I'm an old film guy, and when dealing with digital images there are some things.....noise is a good example....that I just don't see, at least not as well as folks who grew up with digital. I'm too used to the imperfections and limitations of film. We always had grain, and sharpness was a matter of focus not processing. I'm not complaining, because digital allows me to "fix" some of flaws in my old film stuff. I'm just not as good at it as some folks, so its good to try to creep up the learning curve a bit.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 01:09 AM   #4
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Okay, I just got my long overdue new contact lenses today so perhaps I can address an "undersharpened" issue. Looking at the image, I'm wondering if it's a depth-of-field issue. It seems to me that the nose and numberboards are sharp, but everything from the cab side numbers further back looks a bit on the soft side. Not a lot, but still noticeable. Or maybe I should ask for my money back...
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 01:38 AM   #5
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Looking at the image, I'm wondering if it's a depth-of-field issue.
Your comment caused me to go back to the hi rez version and take a closer look. I don't think it is depth of field per se, but the repetitive detailed markings on the lumber wrap combined with their slightly irregular surface creates the appearance of lack of sharpness. Perhaps that is what turned off the screeners. I have run into what may be a related issue in the way digital resolution renders the fluting on the side of Budd passenger cars when the sun hits them in a certain way. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 02:00 AM   #6
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
...I have run into what may be a related issue in the way digital resolution renders the fluting on the side of Budd passenger cars when the sun hits them in a certain way. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I've seen that too, something like this :

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...04&key=6711116

Not that it had anything to do with the rejection in the case of my shot - or at least I don't think so...
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 02:18 AM   #7
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 718
Default

I think you had a similar issue a while back and Janusz said it was the moire pattern effect on the lumber cars. I think this was the same image , no?
__________________
Carl


My RP pics are HERE

My website is HERE

Last edited by MassArt Images; 05-10-2014 at 03:01 AM.
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 03:06 AM   #8
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
The reason for my curiosity about the sharpness issue, is digital technology has changed things a bit. I'm an old film guy, and when dealing with digital images there are some things.....noise is a good example....that I just don't see, at least not as well as folks who grew up with digital. I'm too used to the imperfections and limitations of film. We always had grain, and sharpness was a matter of focus not processing. I'm not complaining, because digital allows me to "fix" some of flaws in my old film stuff. I'm just not as good at it as some folks, so its good to try to creep up the learning curve a bit.
I would LOVE for the screeners to reveal what they are viewing uploads on. Are they all using similar devices, for instance?
"Noise" is a VERY good example. I selected one rejected image from the forum. Viewed it on HD laptop, HD 22" monitor, as well as 42" HDTV. How anyone saw "noise" in that image without magnification is beyond me.
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 03:27 AM   #9
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by MassArt Images View Post
I think you had a similar issue a while back and Janusz said it was the moire pattern effect on the lumber cars. I think this was the same image , no?
If I raised this issue previously, I'm a bit embarrassed. I have no recollection of doing so, but my wife tells me my memory is less than perfect....and getting worse. I'm not sure what moire means (time to google "moire") but maybe that is the problem with the flats.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 05-10-2014 at 04:23 AM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 04:32 AM   #10
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Gosh, that is pretty bad moire! I haven't seen moire this bad since, well, don't recall, it has been some years. This shot does remind me of that one, though, odd, isn't it? I wonder if that photographer had similar technical problems to yours. Maybe moire shots all look the same?

__________________
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 05-10-2014, 04:35 AM   #11
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Seriously, I don't know what I was thinking then. If this is the same shot, then my view of it has changed. I would now say that a) RP likes them crispy, and b) this isn't RP-sharp, although it is sharp enough for me. I would give it a modest kick of sharpening and I think it gets on. But I hate to disagree with that wunderkind of photography, the great Janusz of years ago. What happened to him?
__________________
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 05-10-2014, 04:48 AM   #12
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
I would give it a modest kick of sharpening and I think it gets on.
Oh my gawd, the darn thing is over sharpened already. But that moire just won't go away. Why can't a screener step in and just say, "it was the moire, we don't take moire on RP". Then I could sleep at night.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 05-10-2014 at 04:51 AM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 05:11 AM   #13
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Why can't a screener step in and just say, "it was the moire, we don't take moire on RP".
Too technical.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 06:46 AM   #14
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Okay, I just got my long overdue new contact lenses today so perhaps I can address an "undersharpened" issue. Looking at the image, I'm wondering if it's a depth-of-field issue. It seems to me that the nose and numberboards are sharp, but everything from the cab side numbers further back looks a bit on the soft side. Not a lot, but still noticeable. Or maybe I should ask for my money back...
Second look @ 200%. I don't see moire beyond the power, looks like it's simply beyond the range of sharp focus. More sharpening here = more "jaggies".

I did have moire problems when scanning magazine covers. But lo and behold, my scanner has moire reduction that eliminated it.
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 04:14 PM   #15
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

OK...I looked at the image, and I read the comments. This simply defies belief. The shot is stunning. John's one of the guys who is obviously experienced far beyond any of the RP.net screeners. He selected this shot, did his thing with Photoshop, and uploaded it...and now he's scratching his head wondering why it was rejected. No matter what you say, guys, there ain't a logical or defensible reason. This is also an example of how experienced photographers eventually sour on RP.net, at least in its current incarnation.

My interest in uploading my shots to RP.net just continues to erode when I see things like this. My Flickr account, by comparison, is a lot of fun. I should have cranked it up earlier. No grief---just the fun of sharing images with others (and seeing their work). Who the devil cares if I'm not in the hunt for Photo of the Day, Pixel Cluster of the Century, or Derailment Shot of the Decade? I'd much rather have a few people click on my images, and maybe a few of 'em say something like, "....cool shot, Ron." I do the same for the images of others. If I get 100 views on Flickr...that's fine. And if I get 10....that's cool as well.

I honestly think RP.net is much like Chinese water torture...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 06:27 PM   #16
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Oh my gawd, the darn thing is over sharpened already. But that moire just won't go away. Why can't a screener step in and just say, "it was the moire, we don't take moire on RP". Then I could sleep at night.
Well, I give up too. The tree on the right seems fine, the foreground flowers seem fine. The engine, I don't know. As I said, it is perfectly fine to me. That was my best assessment of what may be wrong, i guess I was wrong. I think it is fine. That matters not. I totally agree that the shot should be accepted and John should be moving on to the next shot in his collection, in a happy mood. Sorry that he is not.

Does admin/screener really think this shot is being improved in any way through the screening process? Chris, are you around? Please tell us why this shot is so bad that you should not have "expanded the range", in this case in your technical dimension, moire or whatever, and have accepted this shot? Is this really the best use of John's time?
__________________
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 05-10-2014, 06:58 PM   #17
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile There must have been a reason

What fascinates me is trying to figure out why first a screener and then an appeal person chose to reject it. Obviously there is something about the image they didn't like. A screener working fast might have simply hit the wrong button, but presumably a second person agreed. So apparently it was a considered decision, not a fluke. I often joke that there is screener that hates me and rejects stuff just to get my goat. But an appeal person also? I'm not pissed off or even upset, just curious. There must be SOMETHING wrong with that image that I and others don't see.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 07:29 PM   #18
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
What fascinates me is trying to figure out why first a screener and then an appeal person chose to reject it. Obviously there is something about the image they didn't like. A screener working fast might have simply hit the wrong button, but presumably a second person agreed. So apparently it was a considered decision, not a fluke. I often joke that there is screener that hates me and rejects stuff just to get my goat. But an appeal person also? I'm not pissed off or even upset, just curious. There must be SOMETHING wrong with that image that I and others don't see.
Meanwhile stuff like this continues to get in

Image © John Sesonske
PhotoID: 480868
Photograph © John Sesonske


Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Well, I give up too. The tree on the right seems fine, the foreground flowers seem fine. The engine, I don't know... Does admin/screener really think this shot is being improved in any way through the screening process? Chris, are you around? Please tell us why this shot is so bad that you should not have "expanded the range", in this case in your technical dimension, moire or whatever, and have accepted this shot? Is this really the best use of John's time?
Call me jaded, but I don't think I am going out on a limb here. I don't think we will be hearing from them for another few months or longer. As has been their "M.O." for the last couple years.

Last edited by troy12n; 05-10-2014 at 07:35 PM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 07:30 PM   #19
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
I often joke that there is screener that hates me and rejects stuff just to get my goat.
That's one thing I love about the Forums... knowing I'm not alone in that suspicion. Whew!

Unless... lol.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 07:32 PM   #20
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Meanwhile stuff like this continues to get in

Image © John Sesonske
PhotoID: 480868
Photograph © John Sesonske
I have no issue with that getting on.... I only have an issue with the NEXT common power overcast shot getting rejected.

Hmm.... I had to double check which thread I was in - I thought for a minute it was the "Nothing ever changes".

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 07:36 PM   #21
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
I have no issue with that getting on.... I only have an issue with the NEXT common power overcast shot getting rejected.
But you SHOULD have a problem with it.

Quote:
Hmm.... I had to double check which thread I was in - I thought for a minute it was the "Nothing ever changes".
Or "best rail photos on the internet" or some other thread where we question the consistency
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 07:46 PM   #22
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
But you SHOULD have a problem with it.
But I don't... with Darwins, wedges, wrecks and heritage galore, I've always put more credence in RP as the BEST railroad database on the net. I don't have to look at every photo and I don't mind scrolling past photos such the one you've singled out to get to the BEST railroad photos on the net.

So long as I don't have to see John's shot, anyway. That would've ended it all for me, lol.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 08:55 PM   #23
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile Being ignored

This is where it would be nice is someone at RP stepped in and said something, anything, it can be cryptic...."the image sucks" would be fine. Just so that we get some feeling that as contributors we are not being totally ignored.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 09:00 PM   #24
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Hey John - have you tried AmazonSmile?

/Mitch







Mgoldman 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 03:25 AM.


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