Utterly Stumped

brunswickrailfan · 10-13-2005, 03:26 PM

First time everthe Screeners have not given me a good reason for rejection.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=174109 (2nd attempt)

The first time I uploaded it, it was rejected for being dark...good decision...it was dark.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=174092 (1st attempt)

So, I brightened it up a bunch (1.5 stops), and it was then rejected for Poor Cropping, which wasn't mentioned in the first rejection. And this is the excact same crop...just brighter.

Can any of the Screeners give me a reason? The cropping is perfect for a tele-mash 3/4 wedgie. The cropping is identical to this one:

PhotoID: 120262
Photograph © Daniel Putz

skyliner · 10-13-2005, 03:32 PM

Dan:
I like it, and would have cropped it the same way. Shows enough of the scene to place it in context, but enphasizes the locomotive. Looks like it's pretty close to following the classic "rule of thirds", also, with the visual highlight in the upper right!
George

bnsf sammy · 10-13-2005, 03:45 PM

I really like the lit one, it really shows a fall type scence. I'd appeal.

brunswickrailfan · 10-13-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnsf sammy

I really like the lit one, it really shows a fall type scence. I'd appeal.

I did...it was rejected.

csx_fan · 10-13-2005, 06:40 PM

The first thing I see is that the color is awful. There's a really strong yellow tint to the photo. It almost looks like you slid the white balance bar all the way to the right when doing the RAW conversion.
Although this version still has problems, I think it shows the direction in which you need to go with this one.

brunswickrailfan · 10-13-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csx_fan

The first thing I see is that the color is awful. There's a really strong yellow tint to the photo. It almost looks like you slid the white balance bar all the way to the right when doing the RAW conversion.
Although this version still has problems, I think it shows the direction in which you need to go with this one.

Nope. I did no altering of the WB...which is set to my default of 6300. I added a smidgeon of Saturation. But the point is that it was rejected for "Poor Cropping" and the cropping is just fine...AND it wasn't mentioned in the first reject...

4kV · 10-13-2005, 08:07 PM

Sounds like the first screener thought it was too dark, the second screener though the cropping was bad. It wasn't mentioned the first perhaps because the first screener had no problem with it.

Joe the Photog · 10-13-2005, 08:27 PM

Daniel;

I'm not sure what is hard to understand about the rejections. Different screeners see different things. Obviously, the same screener did not reject it for different reasons.

Joe

busyEMT · 10-13-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brunswickrailfan

Can any of the Screeners give me a reason? The cropping is perfect for a tele-mash 3/4 wedgie. The cropping is identical to this one:

PhotoID: 120262
Photograph © Daniel Putz

Now you may run the risk of "similar to previous upload". Nice shot though. I like the fall is just around the corner feel.

brunswickrailfan · 10-13-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Daniel;

I'm not sure what is hard to understand about the rejections. Different screeners see different things. Obviously, the same screener did not reject it for different reasons.

Joe

I still think no one is getting it...

The crop IS identical to the one that did get accepted. The picture is acceptable in ALL OTHER CATEGORIES... Why was this one rejected? I just wan't to hear the **********Screeners'*********** thoughts...

brunswickrailfan · 10-13-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busyEMT

Now you may run the risk of "similar to previous upload". Nice shot though. I like the fall is just around the corner feel.

Well, this one has more color...different train (it's loaded and doublestacks)...

Ween · 10-14-2005, 12:01 AM

Dan,

I'm no screener, but you're gonna get my opinion anyway since it's in the forums. Perhaps the brush in the bottm left/foreground is the culprit. It draws the eyes, but I like it; it shows depth.

But, if you want the screener's opinions, reply to the e-mail you got with the appeal rejection (I'm assuming they didn't elaborate to your liking in the appeal rejection) as opposed to seeking it in the forums. Just a thought...

brunswickrailfan · 10-14-2005, 01:04 AM

It's still from "Screeners at railpictures dot net" ... it won't reach a soul.

ccaranna · 10-14-2005, 02:31 AM

Sorry Dan, that's a tough break.

I've had the same thing happen to me before where I fixed a crop and shadow issue; only to have it rejected again after resubmitting for "too dark, or not enough light on nose of subject." I appealed the photo, stating what I had done, and advised that I thought perhaps if the previous screener had seen my touched up version it would be accepted, but my appeal was denied.

This is just one of those things- not much can be done.

It was nice to see the GP50 accepted, though. There's still hope on cloudy day shots, but I have yet to try my luck on uploading a few of mine.

jalang · 10-14-2005, 02:49 AM

Dan,
You mentioned that your white balance is set at a default of 6300. Why is that? I tweak the WB in nearly every shot I process; the camera's auto-white balance sensor is pretty darn good. Do you do WB processing in Photoshop instead?
I would not recommend simply sticking with any default WB at any time, that will result in odd color in many cases.
Good luck!
-Alex

brunswickrailfan · 10-14-2005, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalang

Dan,
You mentioned that your white balance is set at a default of 6300. Why is that? I tweak the WB in nearly every shot I process; the camera's auto-white balance sensor is pretty darn good. Do you do WB processing in Photoshop instead?
I would not recommend simply sticking with any default WB at any time, that will result in odd color in many cases.
Good luck!
-Alex

I do the WB in the RAW converter in Photoshop CS...I usually set it to 6500 or so...but this one is set at 6300 to keep out the excessive yellowing.

Chris Starnes · 10-14-2005, 01:20 PM

As it has been said, different crew members might see things differently. Personally, if I had screened it, I would have rejected it for bad color and cloudy/common. You've got better material than this, don't get so worked up over one marginal shot....

brunswickrailfan · 10-14-2005, 03:40 PM

It ain't the shot I'm clammoring about...

It's the fact that there was no good reason given for rejecting it. But I can see the logic, clearly.

Thank's Chris.

railtrekker · 10-18-2005, 12:26 PM

I don't think that YOU get it. There is more than one screener on this site. Screener # 1 found it to be too dark. you lightened it up and resubmitted it. You get another rejection because screener #2 didn't like it for a cropping issue. He saw something that he didn't like about the cropping in his/her opinion. You appealed and once again rejected.(May have gone to the same screener) I Like it. I've worked on photos 3-4 times before it got accepted, and sometimes I just sit on it for a day or two and resubmit the very first one and it gets accepted. The screeners aren't professionals and it is just an OPINION on their part. Maybe they have been staring at the computer screen for an extended period of time and their brain gets a little fuzzy. I don't know. For about every 5 I submit one gets accepted.
When that one gets accepted, I feel as if I accomplished something. When it continues to be rejected, I feel like they are a bunch of idiots that have been sniffing computer fumes too long! Boy do I get aggravated when the rejects keep coming!
Brian

brunswickrailfan · 10-18-2005, 03:50 PM

Ummm...ok. I do get it.

Thanks for resurrecting a dead thread...

Joe the Photog · 10-18-2005, 04:46 PM

I was still trying to understand why you thought there was no good reason to reject it when it was rejected two or three times.

Joe

brunswickrailfan · 10-18-2005, 06:09 PM

I even said, "I can see the logic, cleary."

...