Really?

Decapod401 · 10-10-2020, 04:01 AM

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...36&key=9585251

John Russell - NZ · 10-10-2020, 06:38 AM

Looking good I say. Flickr it and I will fave it.

miningcamper3 · 10-10-2020, 08:56 AM

I too like the photo, but I think the screener took a hard look at the bridge railing where it has the power's trucks and fuel tanks for a background.
And what's the clutter? Lots of RP photos have branches at left or right foreground. Too bad the screeners rarely respond to questions.

Decapod401 · 10-10-2020, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper3

I too like the photo, but I think the screener took a hard look at the bridge railing where it has the power's trucks and fuel tanks for a background.
And what's the clutter? Too bad the screeners rarely respond to questions.

Not calling out the photographers, but almost every shot from these two bridges should have been rejected if the railing is clutter.

PhotoID: 533068
Photograph © Grady F. McKinley

PhotoID: 741724
Photograph © Joe Osciak

TedG · 10-10-2020, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401

Not calling out the photographers, but almost every shot from these two bridges should have been rejected if the railing is clutter.

PhotoID: 533068
Photograph © Grady F. McKinley

PhotoID: 741724
Photograph © Joe Osciak

A valid point. I know you use it sparingly, but this screams for an appeal.
/Ted

Joseph Cermak · 10-12-2020, 01:40 PM

I have never understood why bridge railings get applied as foreground clutter, especially when it seems to be applied to randomly.

EMTRailfan · 10-12-2020, 01:53 PM

I don't know if it is the bridge railings as much as it is the low angle making the bridge itself cut off a portion of the trucks. Great location with some distance cut the low angle maybe?

RobJor · 10-12-2020, 03:34 PM

1) I don't see over sharpening
2) I ngeneral I don't believe in excluding images due to obstructions that are part of the railroad unless they really detract from the overall image
3) it is a pleasant image, the bridge is as much or more the subject with the train being secondary
4) while there are excellent images submitted, every day I see many accepted images which are devoid of any interest that I can see, ie totally generic, even tho they comply with the rules

Bob Jordan

Decapod401 · 10-12-2020, 07:28 PM

Thanks everyone for your comments!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ

Looking good I say. Flickr it and I will fave it.

It's been on Flickr for two days. Where's your fave?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMTRailfan

I don't know if it is the bridge railings as much as it is the low angle making the bridge itself cut off a portion of the trucks. Great location with some distance cut the low angle maybe?

A valid point that I have overlooked, but there is a wall of trees behind me, preventing a more distant view. There is a small riverbank and island that yield a more broadside angle, but do not correct this issue:

PhotoID: 723406
Photograph © Duncan Mara

Nothing wrong with this photo, but the same "obstruction" exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedG

A valid point. I know you use it sparingly, but this screams for an appeal.
/Ted

Not going to waste an appeal. Clearly it wasn't "worthy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor

1) I don't see over sharpening

Me either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor

5) Here you have an excellent photographer, a great contributor, I am not speaking for how Doug will react, but for others these rejections can wear you down to the point you just lose interest and move on. I don't think it is an ego thing or having a snit, just.....

Bob Jordan

Thanks for the props, and very perceptive, Bob. This kind of crap is making RP less and less fun. After two knee replacements, this is the most ambitious photo that I've attempted since rekindling my photography interest. It's about a 15 minute walk in on private property to a not-well-known location, and I gave up several well-lit but more common scenes to get this. By the time I caught up to the train, it was at a point in the route that was backlit before heading into inaccessible territory for a while.

I have no problem with valid technical rejections, and I correct them to make a better image. I'm well aware that the backstory has no effect on the image, but I was stoked that I had "not just another R&N image" when I submitted it. This marginal BS just pissed me off, and I haven't posted anything since. While I haven't decided to walk away from RP yet, I am considering it.

RobJor · 10-12-2020, 08:17 PM

Doug, I actually deleted that last part because even with the disclaimer I didn't want to stake out a position for you, so interesting we feel the same. The photographer of the other view may think the dunkin donut reference in the copyright is cute but detracts and trivializes the work.

Bob

miningcamper3 · 10-13-2020, 01:43 AM

"...excessive sharpening, meaning that straight lines (such as handrails, edges, and cheatlines) often appear very jagged...."

Again, I do like the photo, but I suspect that the screener found the bridge railings lacking in smoothness.

Decapod401 · 10-13-2020, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper3

"...excessive sharpening, meaning that straight lines (such as handrails, edges, and cheatlines) often appear very jagged...."

Again, I do like the photo, but I suspect that the screener found the bridge railings lacking in smoothness.

I received several undersharpened rejections for non-slide images in the past, and I now have a preset for a moderate amount of sharpening that has never been rejected. Looking closely at the railings in LR and removing all sharpening, I saw a marked improvement, so I now agree that the oversharpening rejection is valid. That, of course is a correctable error, but the obstruction is a killer, and sends a clear message that the correcting the technical rejection will not result in acceptance.

miningcamper3 · 10-13-2020, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401

...the obstruction is a killer, and sends a clear message that the correcting the technical rejection will not result in acceptance.

Yet elsewhere they are tolerating large, out-of-focus leaves and branches in the foreground, and (worst of all!) big watermarks right in the middle of otherwise good photos. The mind boggles!

need2foam · 10-13-2020, 02:51 PM

That is a fantastic bridge. You don't get to see structures like that here in the Midwest.

Decapod401 · 10-13-2020, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by need2foam

That is a fantastic bridge. You don't get to see structures like that here in the Midwest.

It is very unique - see the caption in the photo below.

need2foam · 10-14-2020, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401

It is very unique - see the caption in the photo below.

Fascinating. Thanks

TedG · 10-14-2020, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401

It is very unique - see the caption in the photo below.

I once dated a woman with pierced spandrels. No wait...

Seriously, thanks for the architecture lesson.

/Ted

John Russell - NZ · 10-23-2020, 10:04 PM

[quote=Decapod401;196917]Thanks everyone for your comments!

It's been on Flickr for two days. Where's your fave?

Sorry Doug. I didn't realize that I wasn't following you. I'm keen to see some more of your recent photography. I like your photo composition. Have a go at re-submitting the photo in question here, if you haven't already. The response on flikr says enough IMO.