Rejected Photo Comments

[Data]

Just got my new camera and got a few photos. This one was one of the better ones but got rejected any comments on what I could do better next time.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=448100&key=0

[JRMDC]

Crop in close to emphasize the interaction between the T&E and maintenance people. You may be able to do that with this one.

[Data]

Just tried that but they just don't like that truck. I think it adds to the photo.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=448239&key=0

[Greg P]

I've noticed that they don't tend to like MOW equipment.

Did you write a note to the screener?

[Data]

No I did not put any note with the photo but that may of helped.

[WembYard]

Data, maybe you could try something like the attached. I know it cuts the rear of the loco off but, as Janusz suggests, it does emphasize the "human element". It also looks less like a roster shot with a truck parked in front of it.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by WembYard

Data, maybe you could try something like the attached. I know it cuts the rear of the loco off but, as Janusz suggests, it does emphasize the "human element". It also looks less like a roster shot with a truck parked in front of it.

Yes! When I said "crop," maybe I should have been clearer and said CROP. Or,

CCCCC RRRR OOO PPPP
C R R O O P P
C RRRR O O PPPP
C R R O O P
CCCCC R R OOO P


I would crop tighter than Janet, even. Even losing the front of the engine, so as to focus on the people.

PS Oh well, can't do the "CROP" thing in huge letters, doesn't work in this sytem.

[Data]

Thanks for the help I tried to crop it but still did not seem to help.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=319702215

[Joe the Photog]

The third reject is the best ofthe bunch for all the reasons others listed above me. I would appeal and say that you were trying to focus on the interaction between the crews. It might still not make it, but at least you have made yourself clear to the screeners.

It's actualy a much better shot cropped in and the fact that you can clearly make out the trainman's face is a definite plus.

I also note the engine description under the number. Is thi a mistake or are they derating GP40-2s?

And don't tell me they don't like MoW stuff. Blanket statements are generally not true to begin with.

PhotoID: Photograph ©

PhotoID: Photograph ©

PhotoID: Photograph ©

Joe

[Carl Becker]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

And don't tell me they don't like MoW stuff.

This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments? Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.

[Data]

Well I appealed it and it got rerejected

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by Carl Becker

This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments? Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.

My ESP is down for the day. Instead, is it possible to see the shot you're talking about?




Joe

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Greg P

I've noticed that they don't tend to like MOW equipment.

I'm with Joe, I disagree completely:

PhotoID: 212197 Photograph © Jim Thias

PhotoID: 209332 Photograph © Jim Thias

PhotoID: 190193 Photograph © Jim Thias

However, I AM slightly stunned that they'd reject that for "foreground clutter." I like your photo not only for the human element, but also for the comparison in railroad equipment. The position of the high railer is perfect to show the size difference between that and a locomotive. How else would that scene be acceptable?

[trainboysd40]

When I saw the reason for rejection, I actually laughed, then thought to myself with a further chuckle "Oh, that's railpictures for you.."
One thing I noticed about most of the MOW photos shown above - They're action shots! Something tells me the screeners just aren't excited by the prospect of a pickup truck on steel wheels.

[Northern Limits]

Originally Posted by Carl Becker

This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments?

Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.

No - it is really hard to get a rejected shot on the database

But seriously, I submitted some interesting MOW shots and consistently got the esthetic rejection, so I gave up submitting them. Now I enjoy them in my personal collection.
The attached picture was the subject of a forum some months ago: http://forums.railpictures.net/showthread.php?t=5435

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Carl Becker

This is something I've been wondering about. I recently submitted a shot of a piece of crane-type equipment, and it was rejected for cropping (I think) but also for the poor esthetic quality reason. Comments? Does anyone have a similar shot in the database that they can share here?

Thanks.

The only MOW shot I've gotten accepted

PhotoID: 207810 Photograph © Loyd Lowry

The attached photo was rejected for PEQ

Loyd L.

[sd9]

Originally Posted by Greg P

I've noticed that they don't tend to like MOW equipment.

Did you write a note to the screener?

they don't like what?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=207860

[Northern Limits]

PhotoID: 207860 Photograph © Bill Grenchik

Yes, but there is a locomotive in the picture

[sd9]

Originally Posted by Northern Limits

Yes, but there is a locomotive in the picture

and there was a locomotive in the picture that started this thread
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=319702215

[Ween]

"Railpictures doesn't accept shots of MoW equipment/Hi Rails"

Bull! Stop making excuses/generalizing!

PhotoID: 172396 Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

PhotoID: 101107 Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

PhotoID: 115930 Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

[Slopes09]

I've had issues with getting MOW pictures in in the past. Can we please get a clear consensus from the screeners on MOW equipment? It seems like many get the PEQ rejection (or the bad motive of the past).

Here's my take on it: I believe that MOW forces represent part of the railroad, and that if RP truly wants to represent the railroad as a whole, MOW should be included, as, without them, the railroad wouldn't run, period. I especially say this as someone who will someday most likely work with them.

Now, I'm not vouching for my shots of the past, I realize many of my attempt of the past were artistically poor.

As for the shot in question, I like the cropped down version. It clearly shows interaction between MOW and railroad crews. And, in the cropped down version, the photographer clearly isn't attempting to focus on the locomotive, but instead on the engine and hi-railer crew. This would negate the "foreground clutter," since the foreground is part of the subject.

[Crusader]

Interesting assortment of MoW acceptances and rejections. I would have agreed about action shots having a better chance of acceptance until I saw the dueling backhoes by 'Northern Limits' (Jim). You don't really get more action than that...yet it got the axe. Puzzling.

I keep most of my MoW shots to myself. I think I have one accepted here, and that's just a Sperry car.

I did try submitting a few in October, showing Amtrak tie replacement on the Keystone Corridor. One in particular I felt was good enough to make it here, but there were repeated objections about the cropping. Funny tho, it was accepted by a well known railroad magazine (fingers crossed until I actually see it in print).

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by Crusader

Funny tho, it was accepted by a well known railroad magazine (fingers crossed until I actually see it in print).

Once again, RP should not be thought of as the end all for good railroad photography. It's just another, albeit very popular, avenue for sharing ones shot.


Joe