RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Bad color and high sun. (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7347)

Bryan Oliver 05-14-2008 02:26 AM

Bad color and high sun.
 
I got this one rejected for bad color and high sun.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=523229&key=0

I don't think this looks like high sun at all, but I'm not sure about the color. Comments please?

captadam 05-14-2008 02:37 AM

CSXT 1! How cool.

High sun? I'm not seeing it. Bad color, maybe; the yellow, as well as the greens in the background, look a bit weak. It could stand some increased saturation.

JimThias 05-14-2008 05:02 AM

According to the shadows, this isn't high sun...but it is definitely poor lighting. The contrast/color does look a little odd, too.

Looks like your camera's date/time feature incorrect, too:

Quote:

Original Date/Time = 2006:01:01 13:03:04
January 1st...in Kentucky? And that definitely doesn't look like a 1:03pm sun angle. haha

RicHamilton 05-14-2008 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
January 1st...in Kentucky? And that definitely doesn't look like a 1:03pm sun angle. haha

That brings an interesting question that only the screeners can answer. Do they look at the exif data to 'aid' them in their rejection reasoning?

Joe the Photog 05-14-2008 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RicHamilton
That brings an interesting question that only the screeners can answer. Do they look at the exif data to 'aid' them in their rejection reasoning?

My guess is no. Why bother? If it's poor lighting, it's poor lighting.


Joe

WembYard 05-14-2008 06:31 PM

Well, I guess high sun rejection is pretty final. With a wedgie the lighting has to be more or less perfect to get in the db these days unless the subject is rare / unusual; though the high sun in this case, IMO, is borderline.

Turning to the "bad color", the image does have a greenish tint to my eyes.

Andrew Blaszczyk (2) 05-14-2008 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
My guess is no. Why bother? If it's poor lighting, it's poor lighting.


Joe

Joe's guess is the correct answer as well. EXIF data is only available after the photo is in the database. Plus, no screener would take the time to actually open it up and look just to reject it solely on what time it was taken.

JimThias 05-14-2008 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Joe's guess is the correct answer as well. EXIF data is only available after the photo is in the database. Plus, no screener would take the time to actually open it up and look just to reject it solely on what time it was taken.

Would you be willing to admit that sometimes the screeners make a mistake with the high sun rejection, especially on pics that were taken early morning or evening? :-P

JRMDC 05-14-2008 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Would you be willing to admit that sometimes the screeners make a mistake with the high sun rejection, especially on pics that were taken early morning or evening? :-P

Would you be willing to admit that when the screeners make a mistake with high sun, sometimes or usually the shot has harsh or unattractive light?

I find that most of the time at least in the forum, when a "high sun" shot was not taken during true high sun, nonetheless it doesn't have a good appearance. So it's wrong reason, right conclusion, or at least decent conclusion.

transit383 05-14-2008 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Would you be willing to admit that sometimes the screeners make a mistake with the high sun rejection, especially on pics that were taken early morning or evening? :-P

A lot of times, direct sun on the nose gets hit for high sun. Grrrr!

JimThias 05-14-2008 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Would you be willing to admit that when the screeners make a mistake with high sun, sometimes or usually the shot has harsh or unattractive light?

Of course! I "admit" that all the time when I say that they've made a mistake with their high sun rejection pick. It should simply be stated as "poor lighting" instead of "high sun" which can be misleading for the person who had the photo rejected (which then often leads to a lot of debate in this forum).

:smile:

JRMDC 05-15-2008 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Of course! I "admit" that all the time when I say that they've made a mistake with their high sun rejection pick. It should simply be stated as "poor lighting" instead of "high sun" which can be misleading for the person who had the photo rejected (which then often leads to a lot of debate in this forum).

:smile:

We certainly agree that the poor lighting set of rejection reasons should be reconstructed. I think they should have a wrong-side lit version also, too much confusion about backlit when there is sun on the nose.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.