Old 04-27-2014, 03:17 PM   #101
lalam
Senior Member
 
lalam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pune, India
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
I

600 x 800?

Mine is set to 1152 x 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Your screen probably isnt set correctly on your monitor.
I am using 1024X768. Tried 1152X864 but still can't see full screen. J has provided perfect addon.-Full screen image viewer
lalam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2014, 04:09 PM   #102
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by lalam View Post
I am using 1024X768. Tried 1152X864 but still can't see full screen. J has provided perfect addon.-Full screen image viewer

Strange, it should work at that resolution.

BTW - you can change the size of Firefox on the screen by holding down the Ctrl key and pressing the - or the + keys. (Chrome also works this way.)
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2014, 04:19 PM   #103
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
It's not that bad at all. I now think we're going overboard with the nitpicking...
Kind of the point of making. Ted's crop rejection is nitpicking IMO, when compared to the CSX shot that was accepted. Both are pretty equal in train placement within the frame as well as substance surrounding each train. How can one be bad cropping and the other isn't?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2014, 11:00 PM   #104
MagnumForce
Senior Member
 
MagnumForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 602
Default

So I don't remember ever having more than 2 upload slots, it is incredibly annoying and another reason I have always preferred Flickr. My rejection rate is not high and it wasn't in 09 when I started uploading here either.
__________________
-Brent Kneebush
Defiance, Ohio

Last edited by MagnumForce; 04-28-2014 at 01:50 AM.
MagnumForce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:25 AM   #105
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 665
Default

Chase, I wish other screeners would follow your lead and indicate which way corrections should be done. An example follows.

This is a tricky one, and when uploading this I wrote a note saying I leveled with the pole that is in the center, between CP 2850 and CN 6765. It is level with that pole. Now I don't know what to level against.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...90&key=5793973
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:30 AM   #106
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mberry View Post
Chase, I wish other screeners would follow your lead and indicate which way corrections should be done. An example follows.

This is a tricky one, and when uploading this I wrote a note saying I leveled with the pole that is in the center, between CP 2850 and CN 6765. It is level with that pole. Now I don't know what to level against.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...90&key=5793973
More distortion than anything else, Michael. Do a slight CW rotation until the center pole is completely vertical. That's my 2 cents worth during a quick observation.

Thanks,
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 04-28-2014, 02:01 AM   #107
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
More distortion than anything else, Michael. Do a slight CW rotation until the center pole is completely vertical. That's my 2 cents worth during a quick observation.

Thanks,
Chase
Thanks, on looking again, it looks like the center pole may be unlevel by about 0.1 degree, though even that's open to interpretation. Frankly it's quite nitpicky as far as rejections go.

Last edited by Mberry; 04-28-2014 at 02:40 AM.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 02:33 AM   #108
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mberry View Post
Chase, I wish other screeners would follow your lead and indicate which way corrections should be done. An example follows.

This is a tricky one, and when uploading this I wrote a note saying I leveled with the pole that is in the center, between CP 2850 and CN 6765. It is level with that pole. Now I don't know what to level against.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...90&key=5793973
Gee, the only place to level is the pole. And the pole is level. Therefore the rejection I think is invalid.

The pic is very nice and I would love to go to the museum again.

However, the FA unit's nose being cut off bothers me.
__________________
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
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 03:00 AM   #109
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mberry View Post
Chase, I wish other screeners would follow your lead and indicate which way corrections should be done.
And there's your answer - via Chase, albeit the Forums vs comments from the screener - distortion, or rather, perspective distortion.

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

So has the topic of appending the rejections to state CW /CWW and /or perspective.

The question is - prior to digital photography, this kind of correction was never considered mandatory - if even possible. So - should it be here?

Looks level to me - just a bit distorted due to perspective.

You "should" fix unless it benefits the composition. Or, you can shoot super duper wide and crop out 1/3 or so of the scene or get a tilt shift lens.

/Mitch


Back to the thread - "What do you want from Railpictures" though I see your reason for inclusion.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 12:22 PM   #110
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,890
Default

Just fix the distortion. Whoops, I said I'd quit talking about it.

Yes Mitch, it should be considered mandatory. We have progressed as a society, and the tools are now available to fix the inherent flaws of a wide angle glass. Unless the distortion is purposely there for artistic merit, then correct it.

With that said, here's an official suggestion from me:

Create a rejection for non-artistic wide angle distortion that is separate from the current unlevel one

It's quite easy to tell who was doing it on purpose, and who was doing it because the lens just does it..

Loyd L.
__________________
Those who seek glory, must also seek infamy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 12:56 PM   #111
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
The question is - prior to digital photography, this kind of correction was never considered mandatory - if even possible. So - should it be here?
I wouldn't say "prior to digital photography," I'd say "prior to digital editing on the computer," as I remember photoshop being around much longer than digital cameras. I'm pretty sure people were correcting wide angle distortion back in the 90s as well.

Just because technology didn't exist in the past to correct an equipment flaw, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected now because you can. And I'm sure there were plenty of photographers pre-digital processing that dreamed of the day they COULD fix wide angle distortion.

With that being said, there is no "question" to be asked.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:24 PM   #112
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
The question is - prior to digital photography, this kind of correction was never considered mandatory - if even possible. So - should it be here?
No, it wasn't. So when I started dealing with leveling issues of .2 degrees this way or that, I immediately pronounced that as "BS." I know Jim obsesses over leveling issues for the opposite reason as me.

There are a number of irritating reasons shots are rejected on RP.net, and many of them only relate to the "digital age." Consequently, a lot of otherwise terrific photography is being turned away at the door. And---many of those photographers eventually say, "f__k it," and move on.

We all lose in these cases. If it were me, I would only reject the obviously crappy shots---no matter what the reason. I would have only one box to check on the rejection: "We just don't like this image (or you). Sorry."

Now, I realize I'm only repeating what I've said before, and so many others before me...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:34 PM   #113
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
No, it wasn't. So when I started dealing with leveling issues of .2 degrees this way or that, I immediately pronounced that as "BS." I know Jim obsesses over leveling issues for the opposite reason as me.

There are a number of irritating reasons shots are rejected on RP.net, and many of them only relate to the "digital age." Consequently, a lot of otherwise terrific photography is being turned away at the door. And---many of those photographers eventually say, "f__k it," and move on.
If there is a tool to fix unlevel, there is no excuse not to fix it. Prior to the existence of a digital tool to fix unlevel, there was another tool: the human hand. If you held an unlevel photo in your hand, you could make it look level by slightly tilting it with your hand, or rotating it on a table top, or adjusting it on the wall.

Perhaps those photographers who said "F it" and moved on are also the same ones who have unlevel pictures hanging in their houses. They may have an eye for composition, but they are lacking an eye for unlevel. That's ok, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:53 PM   #114
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
......The question is - prior to digital photography, this kind of correction was never considered mandatory - if even possible......
Correcting a leveling issue was possible, but that was done when you made a print from the negative.

I also don't remember any method to correct for distortion like we see now.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 08:53 PM   #115
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
If there is a tool to fix unlevel, there is no excuse not to fix it.
Despite all the improvements in editing software, the last I checked, there is no tool out there that is RP accurate down to the atomic scale.

I don't quite understand why levelness is not recorded in the EXIF - imagine - you could simply rotate plus or minus back to "0".

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 08:56 PM   #116
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation

It doesn't matter, I have had shots rejected as unlevel that were taken on a tripod with leveling bubbles in two plains.

Bottom line, if it doesn't look level, it is going to get bounced.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 07:55 PM   #117
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Hi Chase

I appreciate your interest in finding out what RP contributors want. A lot has already been said, so I will keep my comments as brief as I can.

1. I have been here going on 5 years now, I have learnt a huge amount and I enjoy participating in what the site offers, especially the international nature of the material. I have also been inspired by many of the photographers who contribute to do even better.

2. My biggest frustration (same as many others here) is different rejections for the same shot. I support the suggestion that a resubmitted rejection should be screened by the original screener to confirm if the problem has been corrected. If it has, I would expect the shot to be accepted, not rejected for another reason. For example, a horizon unlevel rejection is corrected, then rejected for bad cropping. That's just nuts.

3. Second for me is screener inconsistency. Example - I get a rejection for 0.01 horizon unlevel and then see a shot accepted that is blatantly unlevel by a bigger margin. I don't mind if rejections are going to force me to improve my shots, but then the same should apply equally to all.

4. Screener comments to point a rejection in the right direction would be a huge improvement. I know feedback is given sometimes, but it has never happened to me. The forums have been helpful with input from other contributors, but not always, because even when applying their suggestions, I've had multiple rejections without any clear indication of what the problem is and how to fix it. I for one would like to learn from my rejections, but that can be difficult when there really is no help forthcoming. Bad cropping is the worst one for me, especially when others don't see a problem with the shot.

5. Because of all the above (and other comments in this thread), at one time I found myself starting to "shoot for RP", thinking that if it doesn't get on here, it's a bad shot. With photography being the subjective medium that it is, I soon learnt that that is not true, I have got over that and now I shoot what I want to shoot and try and get the best possible shot that I can. Too bad if RP doesn't like it.

6. Lastly, I would really like to see a little more latitude (less conservatism?) in the screening process, not to reduce the quality of acceptances, but to hopefully eliminate the really marginal / strange calls on some rejections. PEQ's are one, poor lighting when the lighting is 90 degrees side-on is another, "wrong" side lighting is another.

That's all folks!

Eugene

Last edited by Eugene; 05-07-2014 at 07:57 PM.
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 08:43 PM   #118
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

This is great that your accepting this feedback.

RP.net is probably my favorite railroad photography site. It strives to push people to be their best, and I learned a lot about photography from the rejections I got.

I think my issues would be:

1.) What happened to the long promised redo of the site?

2.) Locations when you submit are a mess.

3.) Rejection Reasons. There is nothing worse than getting a fixable rejection followed by an unfixable one. Make a policy that if a screener has 2 rejection reasons, he/she must give the unfixable one if there is one.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:54 PM   #119
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile My desires are simple...

A clear definition of what you want and don't want to accept, followed by consistent thoughtful screening.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:35 AM   #120
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
A clear definition of what you want and don't want to accept, followed by consistent thoughtful screening.
That is a tough, it is a moving target.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 10:50 PM   #121
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

Back to the perplexing perspective issue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Correcting a leveling issue was possible, but that was done when you made a print from the negative.

I also don't remember any method to correct for distortion like we see now.
That tool was there long before digital photography or processing. It was used by photographers who cared about their images.

Click image for larger version

Name:	harry gross ANSEL ADAMS w CAMERA.jpg
Views:	118
Size:	82.7 KB
ID:	8588

Unfortunately so many did not, or thought they were being "artsy" by exaggerating the perspective distortion (guilty, on rare occasions) that it eventually made it at first not totally unexpected - and ultimately the norm. That, plus the advent of 35mm SLRs which required you to shovel out major money on a tilt/shift lens to correct the distortion didn't help matters either. Don't tell me that before SLRs the cost of a field camera was prohibitive. My dad's old bellows Kodak had that capability also, and he was anything but wealthy at the time. This also has been discussed ad nauseum, yet so many people just can't seem to grasp the fact that photography existed long before 35mm SLRs and their inherent limitations. The only difference was that the correction was made in "pre-processing" (if you will), not post processing.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 01:01 AM   #122
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Back to the perplexing perspective issue:



That tool was there long before digital photography or processing. It was used by photographers who cared about their images.

Attachment 8588

Unfortunately so many did not, or thought they were being "artsy" by exaggerating the perspective distortion (guilty, on rare occasions) that it eventually made it at first not totally unexpected - and ultimately the norm. That, plus the advent of 35mm SLRs which required you to shovel out major money on a tilt/shift lens to correct the distortion didn't help matters either. Don't tell me that before SLRs the cost of a field camera was prohibitive. My dad's old bellows Kodak had that capability also, and he was anything but wealthy at the time. This also has been discussed ad nauseum, yet so many people just can't seem to grasp the fact that photography existed long before 35mm SLRs and their inherent limitations. The only difference was that the correction was made in "pre-processing" (if you will), not post processing.
Right on. This is the kind of stuff I like to read to quiet the critics.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 04:02 AM   #123
MagnumForce
Senior Member
 
MagnumForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 602
Default

And also required a fairly long setup time and was great for a one and done shot but not in any way ideal for the mobile and quick type of shooting we as railfan photographers do...
__________________
-Brent Kneebush
Defiance, Ohio
MagnumForce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 04:20 AM   #124
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Talking

I never used anything like that.

I had 35's and instamatics.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 12:05 PM   #125
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumForce View Post
And also required a fairly long setup time and was great for a one and done shot but not in any way ideal for the mobile and quick type of shooting we as railfan photographers do...
And it takes forever for the Amish to get anyway compared to those who drive cars.
JimThias 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 12:52 AM.


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