Re-stage the shot

[CP990]

Let's re-stage this shot, hold up traffic for a few hours, or better yet have the accident at dawn or something.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=701686&key=0

I seem to recall another accident shot a couple days back of a car in the side of a train ............ high sun. Then there was the shot of a F9 or something with a car under the front plow .............. high sun. I could go on and on but I suspect you get my drift already.

Dave.

[nikos1]

Not to mention the Indiana Railroad streetrunning shot with awful hazy high sun that made pic of the day..........
I dont agree at all with this rejection seeing as youve covered the trucks and plow and your colors are well saturated.

[Kilroy1313]

Your shot is technically OK ! Everything is clearly visible !
It only seemed not to "hit" the screener's eye.
Its difficult to see where the photo did not match the expectations of RP.net

[raider-15]

I personally would not accept this photo into the database. I see RP as more of a railroad photography site than a railroad news site. I think photographers here should focus on submitting their best train photos, not low quality photos of accidents and such. Now I understand your frustration because I've been seeing numerous high sun shots accepted lately, but I don't think that means we should all submit high sun photos and expect them to be added to the site.

[Chase55671]

I liked the shot. I think it'd be a shot that the viewers would notice and definitely proceed to click on. Most likely even a Tof24, if you ask me.

Chase

[CP990]

Originally Posted by raider-15

I personally would not accept this photo into the database. I see RP as more of a railroad photography site than a railroad news site. I think photographers here should focus on submitting their best train photos, not low quality photos of accidents and such. Now I understand your frustration because I've been seeing numerous high sun shots accepted lately, but I don't think that means we should all submit high sun photos and expect them to be added to the site.

Check around the home page for 2 reasons:

1. There is a whole section dedicated to Derailments.

2. Derailments/Accidents get some of the highest hits on RP.

They are very popular here!

Dave.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by CP990

Let's re-stage this shot, hold up traffic for a few hours, or better yet have the accident at dawn or something.



Dave.

I agree with you that you should re-stage and re-shoot the shot.

[CP990]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

I agree with you that you should re-stage and re-shoot the shot.

Where do I send the bill? I ain't cheap, so be warned Oh, then there's the cost of the trailer, and bridge inspection/repair, towing, police/traffic control, ...... what else did I miss?

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by CP990

what else did I miss?

A couple of girls in bikinis walking down the sidewalk would certainly help.

[raider-15]

Originally Posted by CP990

Check around the home page for 2 reasons:

1. There is a whole section dedicated to Derailments.

2. Derailments/Accidents get some of the highest hits on RP.

They are very popular here!

Dave.

I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.

[travsirocz]

A recrop and color adjustment helps.

[CP990]

Originally Posted by JimThias

A couple of girls in bikinis walking down the sidewalk would certainly help.

Where the hell you gonna find 2 girls with bikinis in Alliance?

[CP990]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

A recrop and color adjustment helps.

............. but it's still "high sun" which is the reason for the rejection. There's plenty of high sun shots here.

Dave.

[cassfan3]

Originally Posted by CP990

............. but it's still "high sun" which is the reason for the rejection. There's plenty of high sun shots here.

Dave.

There are indeed a lot of other high sun shots here, many of which may not deserve to get on, but I'd follow Travis's advice with the shot. Merely having high sun is not enough to get an otherwise appealing shot canned. Improving the shot like Travis mentioned may make it acceptable as a whole. It's certainly interesting.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

A recrop and color adjustment helps.

You forgot to level it.

[Doug Wolfe]

Why not simply appeal it?

Shots on bridges like this are at times rejected because you can't see the trucks on the train....but this might be an exception.

Make a reasonable argument and maybe it gets accepted.

[John Ryan]

Appeal it. It's a very interesting shot; one that will probably climb to the top of the day in term of views.

[coborn35]

Originally Posted by raider-15

I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.

But its not LOW QUALITY.

[JRMDC]

Another vote for appeal. It seems to fit within the quality range of wreck shots on RP.

[raider-15]

Originally Posted by coborn35

But its not LOW QUALITY.

I think I pointed out two major issues with the photo, did I not? Not to mention the fact that it was initially rejected. If you want to blatantly make a statement you'll need some sort of evidence to prove your point. And I'm sure I will get some sort of reply about how interesting the photo is. It is indeed interesting and would probably get a large number of views - but that doesn't mean it's a great photo.

Yes, I'm a complete nitpicker.

[khalucha]

Originally Posted by raider-15

I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.

I am dumb, what is considered "Low Quality"?

As for the bottom half of the loco being covered by the bridge, what about all the shots from a distance, or any of the shots on bridges that you can not see the trucks? You say they should not have been accepted then?

Examples of some shots I have as favorite:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...10&favsearch=1

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...258284&nseq=64

[coborn35]

Originally Posted by raider-15

I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.

Originally Posted by raider-15

I think I pointed out two major issues with the photo, did I not? Not to mention the fact that it was initially rejected. If you want to blatantly make a statement you'll need some sort of evidence to prove your point. And I'm sure I will get some sort of reply about how interesting the photo is. It is indeed interesting and would probably get a large number of views - but that doesn't mean it's a great photo.

Yes, I'm a complete nitpicker.

Incorrect. AT BEST, you presented 1 hazy argument. You said it was "bad light", and a myriad of other things. The example for the myriad was the trucks covered. As has been since addressed, that is not an RP issue. As for the light, it looks fine to me, and in either nit-picking case, having a tad bit of high sun does not make it "low quality".

[raider-15]

Originally Posted by khalucha

I am dumb, what is considered "Low Quality"?

As for the bottom half of the loco being covered by the bridge, what about all the shots from a distance, or any of the shots on bridges that you can not see the trucks? You say they should not have been accepted then?

I didn't mean any shot that you can't see the trucks in is low quality. You're taking it to an extreme. To elaborate on what I said: the fact that half the train is covered by a steel object doesn't particularly appeal to me in any way. The photos you provided as examples are both great images in my opinion.

Originally Posted by coborn35

Incorrect. AT BEST, you presented 1 hazy argument. You said it was "bad light", and a myriad of other things. The example for the myriad was the trucks covered. As has been since addressed, that is not an RP issue. As for the light, it looks fine to me, and in either nit-picking case, having a tad bit of high sun does not make it "low quality".

The sun seems to be at a pretty high angle, causing long shadows that aren't pleasing to the eye. Also, it is actually lit from the wrong side. And the trucks being covered can most definitely be an issue. Maybe that's not what it was rejected for, but "obstructing objects" is a rejection you can receive. Now I believe I have made my main arguments clear to you.

[CP990]

Originally Posted by raider-15

I didn't mean any shot that you can't see the trucks in is low quality. You're taking it to an extreme. To elaborate on what I said: the fact that half the train is covered by a steel object doesn't particularly appeal to me in any way. The photos you provided as examples are both great images in my opinion.

The sun seems to be at a pretty high angle, causing long shadows that aren't pleasing to the eye. Also, it is actually lit from the wrong side. And the trucks being covered can most definitely be an issue. Maybe that's not what it was rejected for, but "obstructing objects" is a rejection you can receive. Now I believe I have made my main arguments clear to you.

1. In all your replies you have profoundly stated that this shot is "low quality". Indeed, that has been the primary reason of your dislike for this shot. I really have no objection to your dislike for this shot but because you cannot see the trucks does not automatically make it low quality. If that is a criteria for your work, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But to condem all shots, which obviously you will, shows a lack of vision, because you can only see in a constrained tunnel vision, or, are unable to experiment and think outside the box because it doesn't fit your preconceived idea of what is good or bad.

2. I'm not seeing these long shadows you are refering to? Long shadows happen early or late in the day, not when the sun is overhead. There are no long shadows in this shot.

Dave.

[trainboysd40]

Long shadows vertically, dave.