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)
-   -   Overall Standards (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17447)

dnsommer2013 04-10-2015 07:08 PM

Overall Standards
 
This is the first time I've seen this reason for rejection, and I'm taking it to mean the camera sensor is no good? It was a Panasonic LF-1 with a 1/1.7" sensor.

"Poor Image Quality: The overall image quality of this image is below the standard which we wish to maintain for RailPictures.Net. This photo should not be resubmitted for consideration."

It seems to be a resounding, 100 percent rejection! Flawed on too many levels to count! Yikes!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...43&key=4531594

Rejected Photo ID 1375343
4/10/2015

SFO777 04-10-2015 07:39 PM

I got one of those this morning too. The picture was taken with a Nikon D600. There was nothing wrong with the sensor. Nor with the lens, which was a nice zoom lens. Nothing wrong with image quality of the image.

Me suspects they like the "Do not resubmit" command that is appended to this rejection as it lets their content farmers know that their cotton shan't be accepted at any point in the future i.e. what else do you have to offer me, I'm not interested in this one? But it seems like an unkindness to the folks who create all the content for this website that the website owners are sending such unhelpful rejection reasons that may lead their content farmers to become concerned abuot camera issues that aren't a problem. I thought the grand bargain here was we provide images for free, work on processing them and taking them etc., while the RP screeners help us get better through rejecting or accepting our free images? Maybe they should make a separate rejection reason like "Image unlikely to be made useful to us through further work on your part." so they could provide feedback like "hue" but also provide the permanent rejection message?

NorthWest 04-10-2015 08:49 PM

I'm seeing a bit of softness, but no major quality issues. Your monitor may vary.
However, the shadows on the trailing units and the rest of the train are probably what made them reject this. It is also centered.

chipallen16 04-10-2015 10:04 PM

I'll just say they didn't get the rejection reason wrong and leave it at that.

miningcamper1 04-10-2015 11:24 PM

Is the location interesting? Not especially. And it's a GEVO wedgie, one of a multitude of others.

Still, it's better than some that do get on. As others have written here, it's easy to scroll past those that do not meet one's individual taste.

dnsommer2013 04-10-2015 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 184694)
Is the location interesting? Not especially. And it's a GEVO wedgie, one of a multitude of others.

Still, it's better than some that do get on. As others have written here, it's easy to scroll past those that do not meet one's individual taste.

What is a GEVO wedgie?

Granted the photo doesn't illustrate it well, but these tracks go right across the biggest park in the city, right beside kids playing and picnicking couples, without any fences separating the right-of-way from park goers whatsoever. It's odd. 100-car trains led by triple lash-ups right in the middle of a busy park.

dnsommer2013 04-10-2015 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipallen16 (Post 184691)
I'll just say they didn't get the rejection reason wrong and leave it at that.

No, please, go on. It's okay. If you can do it without being condescendingly vague, by all means. Let's hear it. Because the comment you left, as it stands, is.

miningcamper1 04-11-2015 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnsommer2013 (Post 184695)
What is a GEVO wedgie?

A: Wedge shot of the ubiquitous GE designs (GE Evolution series) that we have been treated to for so many years. I never thought seeing an SD40-2 would be refreshing relief from the lookalikes on every mainline.

Nothing wrong with the shot, really. But what sets it apart from a thousand other BNSF GE wedge shots?

magicman_841 04-11-2015 02:39 AM

Come on man, is this really the best spot in Ithaca?

JimThias 04-11-2015 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnsommer2013 (Post 184695)
What is a GEVO wedgie?

You've been submitting photos to this site for 11 years and you don't know what a wedgie is?

Come on, man.

Kevin B. 04-11-2015 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthWest (Post 184688)
I'm seeing a bit of softness, but no major quality issues. Your monitor may vary.
However, the shadows on the trailing units and the rest of the train are probably what made them reject this. It is also centered.

I totally agree. The shadows are the "real" killer of this shot.

dnsommer2013 04-11-2015 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 184703)
You've been submitting photos to this site for 11 years and you don't know what a wedgie is?

Come on, man.

It was "GEVO" in particular. Yup. Didn't know that. Thanks.

And wedgie? Well, any kid who's been to summer camp knows what a wedgie is!

dnsommer2013 04-11-2015 04:31 PM

I want to clarify that it was the use of the term "Unacceptable Image Quality" that raised questions for me.

In other words, I am not saying this is a great shot or a terrible shot, or that it was a good location or a bad location in Ithaca, or that they should have or should not have accepted it. I am not questioning their decision. What I said is that I have never seen this explanation for a rejection before, where they cite "Image Quality".

Because I've found the term "Image Quality" more often has to do with sensor characteristics and performance, and the quality a sensor can produce, down to a pixel level, as opposed to aesthetic considerations, like cropping, composition, exposure, etc.

It seemed to me they were saying the Image Quality produced by this camera is unacceptable, rather than the qualities of the image, which I now clearly gather is what you guys say they're saying. Which is fine. Thank you.

And I don't think it would be unusual for them at some point to require certain minimum specifications for the equipment contributors use. Perhaps at some point they will. Many photographers now seem to dismiss any camera with a sensor smaller than 1", even though much smaller sensors were once themselves considered state-of-the art. The thinking seems to be that larger sensors produce better "image quality" overall, before even considering the aesthetics.

KevinM 04-11-2015 04:53 PM

Almost any digital camera of reasonable resolution (5-10 MP or more) produced within the last 5 years ought to be able to produce an image that could be posted on RP. If there is an issue with IQ, it is probably not the sensor itself. That said, a person could mess up even an image captured with professional equipment if the focus is not in the right place, or the shutter speed is too low, or the ISO is beyond the sensor's high quality range. Beyond that, there are any number of things that can be done in postprocessing to degrade image quality, most notably excessively cropping, incorrectly resizing or improperly sharpening. Poor IQ can result of any number of problems that don't involve what brand or model of camera you own.

dnsommer2013 04-13-2015 12:01 PM

Yesterday I used my DSLR and my Olympus Stylus 1 side-by-side at the airport. To my eyes, the images they produced are clearly distinguishable from one another, strictly in in terms of image quality. For example, the Stylus 1 images do not hold up well at all with only light cropping. Now, this is no surprise, but the DSLR's sensor is APS-C, and the Stylus 1's is 1/1.7". And this is what I thought they were talking about. Not composition, not exposure, not subject, not shadows, etc. Just image quality. Resolution. Dynamic range.

And if they're not doing it it yet, maybe the time will come when an image from a small sensor will be automatic grounds for rejection, unless perhaps a subject is truly rare or historic, and all you had at the time was an iPhone, or an older digicam with a tiny sensor. Maybe. And that is what they will mean when they say unacceptable image quality. And that is what I thought they were talking about.

Well, at least I learned what a "GEVO" wedgie is...

Thanks guys!

David

Mgoldman 04-13-2015 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnsommer2013 (Post 184713)
I want to clarify that it was the use of the term "Unacceptable Image Quality" that raised questions for me.

In other words, I am not saying this is a great shot or a terrible shot, or that it was a good location or a bad location in Ithaca, or that they should have or should not have accepted it. I am not questioning their decision. What I said is that I have never seen this explanation for a rejection before, where they cite "Image Quality".

There should be a check box option in the Forums stating -

Reply either:

■ Specific to the question
■ Ramble on with unrelated thoughts and opinions.


Going with the first one, I don't see the image quality issue.

I can only assume the screener got lazy and found enough issues of personal objection that PIQ was misused in a poor attempt to cover them all - or, perhaps it was selected in error. You are seemingly aware of those issues and, when so, it's best to leave a comment to the screener at time of posting (with fingers crossed) as well as noting why the image could be of interest to those oblivious in the caption.

Personally - and related, I'd crop out the foreground as I believe the shadows are distracting and they require placing the subject too high in the frame resulting in a "rule of thirds violation" without any need to be "in violation".

/Mitch

SFO777 04-14-2015 05:21 AM

Of course in olden days up until 30's, the great big thing was spectator trains on this line for the rowing races on Cayuga Lake.

I have good memories of trout fishing at Ithaca Falls. They used to say, "The salmon come up the river after smelt" and I remember fishing down by the railroad trestle one day. Never caught a fish there, nor a train. Maybe in another life.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 PM.

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