Old 08-03-2011, 01:58 AM   #1
IHapsias
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question Is it Really That Bad?

Hello everyone, the following photo was rejected for 3 reasoning's.

1.) Train Too Far Away
2.) Size (Dimensions)
3.) Foreground Clutter


I truthfully dis-agree in this case with all 3 given rejection aspects. But I would rather ask for some more opinions on the photo.

Here's the link:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=954042&key=0

What are your thoughts, opinions, etc. ?

Thank you for your input!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:02 AM   #2
stlgevo51
Senior Member
 
stlgevo51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 759
Default

I'm not a fan. The trains are obstructed and too far away from each other (and the photographer) for the composition to be good, which happen to be two of the reasons why the shot was rejected. I can't really comment on the dimensions since I can't really tell what the dimensions are, but the other two reasons will keep it off RP.
__________________
Jake
Railpictures Shots RP stuff.
Flickr Shots All the RP stuff plus some failed experiments, wedgies, and junk.
Youtube Videos
stlgevo51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:05 AM   #3
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

The dimensions one is pretty obvious. They have some fairly strict guidelines regarding dimensions. It's one of the few things they are consistent on. Yours falls outside of the accepted standards.

I dont necessarily agree wtih the too far away thing, there have been LOTS, including several top 2 lately that have been very distant. What yours has working against it is there is not much contrast between the NS units and the dark green background. Maybe that shot would work better in winter or fall.

The foreground clutter, I dunno... it's a bit much

Last edited by troy12n; 08-03-2011 at 02:20 AM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:11 AM   #4
IHapsias
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
The dimensions one is pretty obvious. They have some fairly strict guidelines regarding dimensions. It's one of the few things they are consistent on. Yours falls outside of the accepted standards.

I dont necessarily agree wtih the too far away thing, there have been LOTS, including several top 2 lately that have been very distant. What yours has working against it is there is not much contrast between the NS units and the dark green background. Maybe that shot would work better in winter or fall.

The foreground clutter, I dunno...
I can understand the dimensional rejection, but they do have photos in the DB that do indeed go against their standards. I surely was not agreeing on the " Train Too Far Away " Rejection and the " Foreground clutter " considering both are part of the scene.

The Dimensions are 1024x602 and was shot in RAW with a Nikon D40X.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:12 AM   #5
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

1024x650 is about the minimum you can safely expect to get on, although I have gotten some on wider, and obviously others ave too.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:15 AM   #6
IHapsias
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
1024x650 is about the minimum you can safely expect to get on, although I have gotten some on wider, and obviously others ave too.
Any suggestions as to maybe increase the height of the photo to say, something decently above 650?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:19 AM   #7
asis80
Senior Member
 
asis80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,460
Send a message via AIM to asis80
Default

If there wasnt so much clutter on the Port Perry (NS train) this might have a slight chance but as it stands, you know very well this isn't going to make it.

Ben
__________________
Trains.
asis80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:23 AM   #8
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I don't think I would have accepted this shot either----for a number of reasons (some of which have been cited).
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 02:24 AM   #9
chench1536
Member
 
chench1536's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Massohio
Posts: 94
Default

Honestly, I have no clue what I'm supposed to be looking at, it's a little too busy for my taste. That green pipe is not helping your cause either. And, I think the colors are little washed out as well. The spot has some potential, but I don't think this is a winner.
chench1536 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 06:18 PM   #10
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,910
Default

I'm that late football player jumping on the pile after the fumble when the refs are blowing the whistle and the ball is at the bottom of the stack.... but lump me in with the rest of the folks saying this shot is a no go for the reasons cited.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 07:01 PM   #11
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,195
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Ian,

Others have covered it pretty well, but I also want to point put that the photo is extremely unlevel.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 07:56 PM   #12
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,087
Default

Hi Ian,

With respect to the size, I think you have a legitimate beef. I've been around this buoy before with the Admins and the minimum height for a landscape format image is 600 pixels....period. I have many images on this site with a 3:5 crop and all of them have dimensions of 1024x614. I just checked the properties of the rejection you posted and the dimensions I see are 1024x624, which should be fine. The upload tool is supposed to screen for size issues and boot anything that doesn't meet specs. Assuming it works correctly, a rejection for size was probably incorrectly selected by the Screener.

WRT the other two issues, the rejection is probably justified. A distant train can be OK....there are lots of shots on RP that contain distant trains. Most of them have other elements in the scene, as does yours. The problem I see is that it is not immediately obvious which train....or train part....is the subject of your photo. That's probably because there are obstacles obscuring significant parts of the rolling stock we can see (the foreground clutter that the Screener mentioned). For this shot to be appealing to RP, you'd need to an obvious subject train, and at least a significant, continuous stretch of that train would need to be clearly visible.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 09:01 PM   #13
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Kevin, a) I just plain disagree
b) You may have a number of 3:5 on this site but in my experience that ratio is more often not accepted (maybe it should be, but it isn't)
c) The shot in hand is 1024x605, you forgot to subtract the 19 pixels off the bottom that is the black copyright band.

As for the shot, it may have worked with a UP leader, NS did you no favors in choosing B/W livery.

But actually, I think you are in a compositional no-man's land, too wide, but also not wide enough. I feel as though the left side is being cut down awkwardly, especially given how much is going on there and how little on the right. I would crop on the left, all the way to the tugboat, and see how it looks, maybe better maybe not.

It may not make a great RR or RP-RR pic, but I would like to see a wider scene, both left and right.
__________________
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
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 10:09 PM   #14
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Regardless of the dimensions, it's got too much going against it, so why bother arguing the finer points of dimensions?

This is from the webpage, by the way

Quote:
Size Requirements:

Photos must be at least 800 pixels in width x 600 pixels in height for horizontal images, or at least 750 pixels in height for verticals. Photos not meeting these requirements will be rejected. Optimal size for uploaded images is 1024 pixels wide x 650 pixels high and at a similiar ratio.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 10:18 PM   #15
IHapsias
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
Hi Ian,

With respect to the size, I think you have a legitimate beef. I've been around this buoy before with the Admins and the minimum height for a landscape format image is 600 pixels....period. I have many images on this site with a 3:5 crop and all of them have dimensions of 1024x614. I just checked the properties of the rejection you posted and the dimensions I see are 1024x624, which should be fine. The upload tool is supposed to screen for size issues and boot anything that doesn't meet specs. Assuming it works correctly, a rejection for size was probably incorrectly selected by the Screener.

WRT the other two issues, the rejection is probably justified. A distant train can be OK....there are lots of shots on RP that contain distant trains. Most of them have other elements in the scene, as does yours. The problem I see is that it is not immediately obvious which train....or train part....is the subject of your photo. That's probably because there are obstacles obscuring significant parts of the rolling stock we can see (the foreground clutter that the Screener mentioned). For this shot to be appealing to RP, you'd need to an obvious subject train, and at least a significant, continuous stretch of that train would need to be clearly visible.
Thanks for the information, Kevin and everyone else.

And Chase I see what you mean, but I did about 3 degrees of CCW on this from the original. What do you think it needs to just be a better shot for the personal file?

This is will go away into the personal file..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 10:18 PM   #16
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Kevin, a) I just plain disagree
b) You may have a number of 3:5 on this site but in my experience that ratio is more often not accepted (maybe it should be, but it isn't)
c) The shot in hand is 1024x605, you forgot to subtract the 19 pixels off the bottom that is the black copyright band.
Hi J,

Well, the rules are not worded particularly clearly:

"5. Our system is optimized for photos to be uploaded at 1024 pixels wide (landscape format) and 800 to 1000 pixels high (portrait format) @ 72 DPI. Our minimum photo size is 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height, whichever is greater."

They also don't say anything about cropping ratios. I learned what I reported in my post above from an Admin comment on an appeal (which was rejected). I submitted an image that was 1024 pixels wide and just a hair less than 600 pixels in height. Admin made it clear that I had to clear 600 pixels and when I resubmitted the image with the size corrected, it was accepted. Since then I have used the following as guides for landscape images:

3:5 = 1024 x 614
2:3 = 1024 x 682
5:7 = 1024 x 781
4:5 = 1024 x 819

I've not had a size rejection since the appeal that I mentioned above. I particularly like the 3:5 crop because I don't end up displaying tons of sky, when there's no point. I also find that on my tube, using Windows Vista, the 3:5 image views more easily, requiring virtually no scrolling at all. The 4:5 is the worst and I avoid where possible.

I'm certainly not trying to bust any rules here. I am just reporting what I have experienced and the feedback I have gotten from Admin.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 12:22 AM   #17
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

I shall now start doing 1024x614 from time to time, as indeed a wider format can be useful. So I will see how it goes. As for the rules, they are quite stale in other dimensions, so, alas!, I find them much less than useful in any dimension.

If you want to avoid scrolling, when using any OS, simply change the display parameter, say from 1280x1024 to something like 1440x1280 (of course, the size of text gets smaller). Basically, taller shots show poorly on any system with any OS if you don't have the vertical monitor space. I take it you are not a fan of verticals either.

Vista is bad (alas, I am now getting personal experience with it, although irritating is more accurate than bad) but one shouldn't blame it for every ill.
__________________
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
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 11:53 PM   #18
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,986
Default

I think you have to answer the question that any viewer of your photo would ask.

"Why should I look at this?"

The train is so hidden, the compositional elements such a jumble, the light so uninteresting, there is no compelling reason for someone to look at it.

These have good reasons to look them.

The bridge is great.

Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©


You know I like this one. The white line after the black is compelling and the hill of houses make a great background.

Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©


This one has terrific mood.

Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777

Last edited by Dennis A. Livesey; 08-05-2011 at 12:01 AM.
Dennis A. Livesey 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 12:54 AM.


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