Old 03-03-2008, 01:10 PM   #1
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default A Batch of Rejections - Your Thoughts please

I've just had all these rejected. I don't agree and have appealed, but in the meantime I would value the opinion of you guys.Thanks in advance.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=209359658
Hard to see it's cloudy when the shot is inside a station

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=571171642
I think this is a bit tenuous for backlighting

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=491159&key=0
This had virtually no post-processing, so I can't see how its over-processed.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=480513244
Poor Aesthetic value? This is the opinion of a site that published a tight close up view of a padlock! Are you telling me this is of little interest to viewers?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=959840958
This may be a different angle, but I don't think its a bad angle. Surely, the eyes are drawn to the crew.

I may be wrong with all these of course, but I really didn't expect all of these to be rejected. So come on chaps, tell me the worst.
willig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 01:12 PM   #2
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default

Just had the appeal results. - All rejected.
willig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 01:58 PM   #3
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by willig
Just had the appeal results. - All rejected.
I think there nuts, but then i am to. The going away shot wont get in, as they try Hard not put them in. Try this pick the best one, rework it some. And try in a week or two. you will a better chance with one at a time.+ the weekend is full, best chance on a week day.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/

Last edited by milwman; 03-03-2008 at 02:03 PM.
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 02:08 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

The worst? That it is hard to get RP-quality shots from the overcast UK, and you live there?

1: looks like blah overcast, which does filter down into the station when the roof is open like that. I don't have the experience to know what it would look like on a nice day so I don't know how much difference it makes.

2: Once again, the "(backlit)" phrasing throws someone off. RP, get rid of it! This is "poorly lit." Not enough nose light or, really, any light.

3: I don't see the problem, oh well.

4: Well, I'm not a fan, personally. Overexposed ballast. Not the most interesting part of an engine. Rather plain. There is a worker story but, unlike many worker shots, one cannot tell what the workers are doing. It is fine as documentation of a part of an engine. But it doesn't move me as a photograph.

As far as the padlock, the shot I recall (Joe's?) is an interesting composition with interesting variations in tone. He takes an ordinary lock and makes it into a photograph. This one is more of a snapshot. Sorry for the harshness.

5: Unfortunate foreground obstruction. Somewhat dull in places. I'd reformat as a (5:4?) vertical, cutting between the worker and the pole and then just to the right of the tender logo.

Too bad you didn't have better weather! Oh well. That is some engine!

J
__________________
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

Last edited by JRMDC; 03-03-2008 at 02:10 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 02:16 PM   #5
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Three is a great shot, just overexposed. Pull the highlights down to give it some depth of color and fill in the areas that are too light.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 02:34 PM   #6
denvillerailfan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: a house
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks
Three is a great shot, just overexposed. Pull the highlights down to give it some depth of color and fill in the areas that are too light.

Agreed, I could understand 'overexposed' or 'poor lighting' rejects, but not over processed...
Guess it could be a simple mis-guided click for the screener...

Fix it up! Let's see this one in there! FWIW, I think it has a great chance.
denvillerailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2008, 11:43 AM   #7
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default

Thanks everyone for the help.

I still can't really see the problem with the lighting on the first one, so I'm not able to do much with it. I'll just keep that one to myself.

I've given up on the crawling crew member, as that doesn't seem to be popular here.

I've reworked nos. 2 and 3 and I've followed the tip about cropping the "going away" shot to just the crew and cab.

They've been resubmitted now, so we'll wait and see.

I think Richard makes a good point about the weekend. If there are a lot of photos in the queue (as there was yesterday), they seem to be screened very fast indeed. It might be that unless the shot knocks out the screener within a second of opening it, it's a fair candidate for the bin. I noticed that out of that long queue, there weren't too many accepted, but that might be the normal acceptance rate anyway.
Today's queue is even longer than yesterday's, so I'm not holding my breath for success.

Can I add something about the padlock photo. I absolutely agree that it was indeed a fine shot with interesting variations in tone. He did take an ordinary lock and make it into a photograph. Well done for a very skillful piece of work. BUT - it was still a photograph of a padlock. I just think that this isn't the site for such work. This isn't BuildingFittingsWithaLooseRailConnection.net. I prefer to see trains or rather wider railway infrastructure scenes.

I expect I may not be popular for this, but I promise I'm not knocking the photo. I'm just wondering that if that got in, why are there are so many rejections on aesthetic grounds, which clearly illustrate rail/train content. For example, try submitting a shot of a loco nameplate!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	60019whistle.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	160.8 KB
ID:	2574   Click image for larger version

Name:	60019cab.jpg
Views:	84
Size:	170.5 KB
ID:	2575   Click image for larger version

Name:	60019station.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	163.3 KB
ID:	2576  
willig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2008, 01:56 PM   #8
mikekmac
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Default

I personally don't have a problem with the lighting in #1, but it does appear to le to need some levelling--maybe a degree, degree-and-a-half rotation to the right.

I can't see "overprocessed" in #3, either, but then I can't see it in a couple of my own rejections (including one where, like you, I scarcely did any post-processing). In any case, it seems to me that that one would be worth some work and another go.

I envy you your experience seeing these beauties.

-Mike
mikekmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2008, 02:04 PM   #9
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default

Well, the good news is that they were all accepted.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=225935
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=225937
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=225942

However, this one was rejected for bad cropping.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=791511984

Cropping really is a weak point of mine. It struck me that the track sweeping round on the left is needed, because cutting it would spoil it. But, since I'm not good at cropping, what do you kind helpful chaps think?

All advice gratefully accepted.
willig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2008, 03:45 PM   #10
denvillerailfan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: a house
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by willig
However, this one was rejected for bad cropping.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=791511984

Cropping really is a weak point of mine. It struck me that the track sweeping round on the left is needed, because cutting it would spoil it.
I agree on the track, but what about the roof? Do you have a wider angle? I'm looking at including MORE of the roof opening on the left... That's the only thing that threw me was cutting off the roof.
But what do I know - you just had as many pics accepted in one shot as I have in almost 2 years!

Congrats, the newly accepted look great!
denvillerailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2008, 03:56 PM   #11
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default

I tried this crop and it was accepted.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=225976

The roof of York station is magnificent, but I don't have wider version of this shot. I think it would make the train look too small on a photo. However, it is a beautiful location.
willig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2008, 10:23 PM   #12
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Graham,

I think you had a good idea with trying to show the curve of the track and the platform at York, but it was just cropped too tightly on the left side. I think a wider shot would have gotten in, and of course your tighter crop did get in. Your first effort was sort of caught in between.

Your shot of Bittern with the crew climbing into the cab is much better in the tight vertical crop. The pole obstructing the front of the engine was a killer in the original version.

Your first shot actually looks like you brightened it up too much. Tray darkening it so the colors on the nose of the unit look better. See what you think of the overall shot that way. I don't know if it would get in, but I think it's better.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2008, 10:13 PM   #13
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default

Considering I reworked this shot following people's helpful comments, it's bubbling along quite nicely in the views department. Up to 725 now.

Image © Graham Williams
PhotoID: 225942
Photograph © Graham Williams


Thanks everyone for the advice.
willig 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 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.