This is acceptable?

[vcode455]

C'mon........ I'm really losing my desire to post here for this and other reasons.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/769660/

[Mgoldman]

It's often what is not accepted which I find more frustrating....

You can easily just scroll past images that you don't like, you can't scroll past unaccepted images.

"The BESET railroad photos on the net" does not necessarily mean the prettiest, though one would have hoped Tom's image was initially rejected before getting in on an appeal - or perhaps RP came to a realization that being a site with the BEST portfolios on the Net is better than the site with the best individual images on the 'Net.

Based on the date of the image - I'd be willing to bet Tom might not have the latest version of Photoshop, nor care. The image, while it has technical issues is definitely worth a view, as are most, if not all of his contributions to the site.

/Mitch

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by vcode455

C'mon........ I'm really losing my desire to post here for this and other reasons.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/769660/

Greg,

I'm with you. After an initial rejection for color/hue for what I feel was an acceptable shot,

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...60&key=5027957

I went through two more similar rejections before posting a final try this morning. I received a grain/noise rejection.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...67&key=9014327

Really? When the exaggeration of grain/noise that started this thread is sitting in a TO24 spot?

I'm tired of having my balls busted when there is such inconsistency here. Maybe JMF was right.

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Based on the date of the image - I'd be willing to bet Tom might not have the latest version of Photoshop, nor care. The image, while it has technical issues is definitely worth a view, as are most, if not all of his contributions to the site.

/Mitch

Mitch, I appreciate most of Tom's previous contributions, but lately he has been posting images that are not his own, and most are very likely dupes that he does not hold the copyright for, a clear violation of RP policy. The C&EI image that Bob J posted in another thread belongs here much more than this image. No version of Photoshop can correct the flaws of this image, and why the screeners look the other way is beyond me.

[vcode455]

Mitch,
That is the issue though. Doug's photo gets a grain rejection but this doesn't? Same with the C&EI image from Terry Norton. This is obviously a dupe (I think I have the same image in my collection, probably a Bob Anderson original), and a bad one at that. I have a lot of great 1st gen North Shore interurban dupes in my collection, but I don't know who took most of them. This site will definitely lose viewers if it becomes the best portfolios on the net........

Greg

[br_railphotos]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

Greg,

I'm with you. After an initial rejection for color/hue for what I feel was an acceptable shot,

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...60&key=5027957

I went through two more similar rejections before posting a final try this morning. I received a grain/noise rejection.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...67&key=9014327

Really? When the exaggeration of grain/noise that started this thread is sitting in a TO24 spot?

I'm tired of having my balls busted when there is such inconsistency here. Maybe JMF was right.

Inconsistency, as well as holding out on further gripes, gets me. On more than one occasion, I've had photos rejected for one thing only to be rejected for another, later. If the screener(s) would list ALL of their gripes right off, it would save the screener(s) and photographers time! I actually wrote the screeners a note about this very thing a few months ago. Obviously, they don't listen to suggestions of lowly peasants.

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Inconsistency, as well as holding out on further gripes, gets me. On more than one occasion, I've had photos rejected for one thing only to be rejected for another, later. If the screener(s) would list ALL of their gripes right off, it would save the screener(s) and photographers time! I actually wrote the screeners a note about this very thing a few months ago. Obviously, they don't listen to suggestions of lowly peasants.

I understand the frustration of follow up rejections, but I have accepted that the screeners are trying to get through a lot of photos and will only list one reason. My long-standing pet peeve is correcting one or more rejections, only to get slammed with a killer rejection follow up, instead of doling out the killer first. I can endure a rejection, but I don't like spending time and my allotted two-per-day upload slots making corrections when a screener could have made it clear from the beginning that no correction could redeem the image. The sentiment gets elevated to pissing me off when the same killer rejection is being blatantly overlooked on much worse images that are being accepted.

[Mgoldman]

Inconsistency has always been a prime issue here, but again,
better to be inconsistent in letting more in then less.

It's never bothered me what gets in, but rather, what does not,
especially compared to what does. I think we all agree with that?

I think if you can present an example of a shot accepted that
has the implied issues of your own rejected shot, it should be
accepted, assuming, say, the compared image was accepted
within the last, I dunno, 12 months?

Again - you can always scroll quickly and easily past images
you dislike.


Back to your shot, Doug -

I like it. I through it into Photoshop expecting "Auto Color" to show "us" what
we didn't see - it looked worse. I ran it through NIK software's "Pro-Contrast"
which has contrast and color cast sliders (amazing filter) and saw a slight
improvement but not the difference between an acceptable shot and a reject.

I don't get it - looks perfectly fine to me, the first one. The second is to orangy,
but I don't see the issue with grain. Perhaps two coincidental wrong rejections??

Along with inconsistencies - as noted in my "Suggestions to Screeners", I suggested
to admin - "just lighten up!" Rejections are fine. The scrutiny in the appeals process
needs to be eased up. 700,000 photos - it's worth keeping patrons if it means a couple
of images within the 700,000 "might" not be up to par. As noted, Tom's image got lots
of views, and even more noteworthy, an above average count of favorites.

Regarding copyright - there are several images on RP that are not originally taken by
the poster. Many are "from the estate of...." or "the collection of....", while others are
properly given credit which should suffice, especially when you consider none are earning
money for the patron posting.

/Mitch

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

I don't get it - looks perfectly fine to me, the first one. The second is to orangy,
but I don't see the issue with grain. Perhaps two coincidental wrong rejections??

Thanks for the verification, Mitch. For the record, after the first color rejection, I warmed the temperature slightly, which usually addresses my color/hue rejections, and received a low saturation rejection. I pulled down the blacks to correct that issue, and got another color rejection, which lead to the grain/noise rejection. That means four rejections of an image that had no real issues to begin with.

Another issue that I have is that I have posted shots over the years that I felt had a legitimate shot at SC/POTW and have ended up with zero point zero. Subsequent reaction on Flickr confirms that they are compelling images, and I am not being egotistical. After well over four years since my last recognition from the staff and countless BS rejection rounds like this, it's clear that my efforts don't get the same benefit of the doubt that is given to others. Posting here has become more of a ritual than a desire, as Greg said in his OP.

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Regarding copyright - there are several images on RP that are not originally taken by
the poster. Many are "from the estate of...." or "the collection of....", while others are
properly given credit which should suffice, especially when you consider none are earning
money for the patron posting.

If the poster owns the original image, I am fine with posting it here. A duplicate slide is not the original image, does not have the quality or copyright of the original. Even if the photographer is credited, the owner of the original may be quite upset with his copyrighted image showing up on a website when he has other plans for the image. RP's policies are quite clear on this matter.

[RobJor]

My question - what is the business plan, exclude or chase away certain slide contributors. There are a few steady slide contributors but compared to what is out there this site is really lagging.

If someone with Doug's PS skills and experience(2900+) navigating Railpics faces these challenges what chance does the average guy with nice photos but with basic skill set have.
As far as Doug's photo even if we could get 2 people to agree on a color adjustment, what is the difference really?
Esoteric??

You start out with a 40 year old slide, research a caption, clean it up, process it. clean it up some more. Very often the sky needs work. Slide films all had their own color bias and you may have some color shift. You do the best you can.

To be fair, I have some accepted where I think I got the benefit of the doubt but then.......... just takes the wind out of your sails.


Bob

[vcode455]

Back to the original point, my complaint is that the image quality on the photo in question is horrible. Certainly 10X worse than some of the rejected images I have seen posted on this forum.

I have posted 1300 shots in 5 years and have never received a SC (I do have 1 POTW). Of those, there are maybe 10 I thought might have a legitimate chance. But we don't have snow covered mountains in the Midwest. My real gripe though, is seeing the same location, sometimes even on the same day, get multiple awards. Mix it up a little.

With regard to dupes and originals.......The originals I have posted from others are from trader slides from friends who are deceased. I would not post an original from someone still with us unless they asked me to. I have a lot of 1st gen dupes from friends who are deceased as well. The sad part there is that many of the originals are in museum collections where we will likely never be able to view them as they have just been stored in their files.

[xBNSFer]

Originally Posted by vcode455

C'mon........ I'm really losing my desire to post here for this and other reasons.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/769660/

Yeah I'd have to say the "it's MILW stuff from 1974" factor is the only redeeming quality of that one. Pretty abysmal.

[ATSF666]

That has to be the worst example of grain I have seen accepted. I uploaded a couple of MRL shots recently taken well before Dannaman discovered Montana and they had no where had the amount of grain exhibited in this one and some of the others that have been uploaded by the poster. I happened to comment on one of his and the poster got rather pissed off by my comment.

I too, wish the owners of the site would decide what their stance is on film shots. I have some interesting slides, but I find the aggravation of trying to get them on the site far exceeds any happiness I might get in sharing my efforts of the past.

I take the opposite view of Mitch these days, if they are not good technically, we shouldn't see them here.

[Moffat Road]

Originally Posted by ATSF666

That has to be the worst example of grain I have seen accepted. I uploaded a couple of MRL shots recently taken well before Dannaman discovered Montana and they had no where had the amount of grain exhibited in this one and some of the others that have been uploaded by the poster. I happened to comment on one of his and the poster got rather pissed off by my comment.

I too, wish the owners of the site would decide what their stance is on film shots. I have some interesting slides, but I find the aggravation of trying to get them on the site far exceeds any happiness I might get in sharing my efforts of the past.

I take the opposite view of Mitch these days, if they are not good technically, we shouldn't see them here.

I’ve been photographing trains in Montana since 1988, a few months after Montana Rail Link was formed. Why are compelled to drag my name (misspelled, by the way) through the mud in a thread that doesn’t involve one of my photos?

Mike Danneman

[ATSF666]

Originally Posted by Moffat Road

I’ve been photographing trains in Montana since 1988, a few months after Montana Rail Link was formed. Why are compelled to drag my name (misspelled, by the way) through the mud in a thread that doesn’t involve one of my photos?

Mike Danneman

I apologize for the misspelling. I don't find anything on the MRL with your name on it in the time period I am discussing, 1988-1992. As I am sure you are aware, anything you upload from the MRL usually gets high honors from the crew here at railpics. All I was trying to say, is that any attempt to upload slides unless your name is _____ or _____ is a waste of time. I'm not trashing your photos as they are consistently outstanding, but I don't see anything from you shot on the MRL from the time period that I shot a lot of photos on the MRL, so how can you be offended?

[Moffat Road]

Originally Posted by ATSF666

I apologize for the misspelling. I don't find anything on the MRL with your name on it in the time period I am discussing, 1988-1992. As I am sure you are aware, anything you upload from the MRL usually gets high honors from the crew here at railpics. All I was trying to say, is that any attempt to upload slides unless your name is _____ or _____ is a waste of time. I'm not trashing your photos as they are consistently outstanding, but I don't see anything from you shot on the MRL from the time period that I shot a lot of photos on the MRL, so how can you be offended?

No offense taken. I just wanted to correct your statement that you “uploaded a couple of MRL shots recently taken well before Dannaman discovered Montana” which is not true. How could you know when I “discovered Montana”?

On the subject at hand, of photo scans—slide scans do get more leniency due to the fact that they are a different medium (film) and quality of scans varies from said images. There’s the rub, as everyone is using different scanners, and many types do not produce very good scans of transparencies.

I’d like to think that the screeners at RailPics do not favor certain photographers, but what surely does enter into their decision making process is the great differences in image quality of the submissions, especially with older scans. Only they see the gamut of photos submitted—and since it is their website—we get to see what is chosen. And sometimes the subject of the photo eclipses the quality, creating imbalances in the selection process, which fostered this thread in the first place.

In my opinion, the posting of other people’s photos (dead or alive) here on RailPics is really not a good idea. A person may have these slides in their collection, but the original photographer still owns the rights to these photos. Additionally, posting scans of dupes is certainly going down a slippery slope, both in image quality and copyright.

Boy, I’ve said enough at this point… just some thoughts on a Friday morning.

Mike Danneman

[Grewup on the CW]

Originally Posted by Moffat Road

No offense taken.....

In my opinion, the posting of other people’s photos (dead or alive) here on RailPics is really not a good idea. A person may have these slides in their collection, but the original photographer still owns the rights to these photos. Additionally, posting scans of dupes is certainly going down a slippery slope, both in image quality and copyright.

Boy, I’ve said enough at this point… just some thoughts on a Friday morning.

Mike Danneman

While this is off the original subject, But now you got my interest and I would like to hear further discussion about the your slide comment.

First its my understanding with posting another photographer pic, so as long as proper credit is given and permission is granted from the living photographer, then its ok to post.

Second if the original photographer of said slide is dead and there is no estate and no know relatives, Who owns said slide?

[Moffat Road]

Originally Posted by Grewup on the CW

While this is off the original subject, But now you got my interest and I would like to hear further discussion about the your slide comment.

First its my understanding with posting another photographer pic, so as long as proper credit is given and permission is granted from the living photographer, then its ok to post.

Second if the original photographer of said slide is dead and there is no estate and no know relatives, Who owns said slide?

In reference to your first question, as far as I know, as long as a photographer gives permission for someone to post a photo online, it is okay. Obviously, a photo credit is much appreciated.

I don’t know all of the copyright laws, but a quick search online revealed a little more information:

https://www.format.com/magazine/reso...ight-law-guide

Answering your second question is this sentence from the article, “The photographer who pushed the button owns the copyright. A photographer will own that copyright throughout their life and 70 years afterwards.”

This is where these postings of other photographer’s photos from people’s collections on RailPics is not right. I believe the original photographer still owns the copyright.

If anyone has any other information, maybe they can share it here too.

Thanks,

Mike Danneman

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Moffat Road

Answering your second question is this sentence from the article, “The photographer who pushed the button owns the copyright. A photographer will own that copyright throughout their life and 70 years afterwards.”

After reading the reference material at the link, what I did not see is how a photographer can assign a copyright to another. Perhaps I missed something, but it would seem to me that if someone "owns" something, such as a copyright, they should be able to sell/assign it to someone else, either as a sale or in their will. The reason that's important is to assure the survival of the material once the originator passes. Without such a provision, where would be the incentive to someone to acquire/preserve the work of another who is deceased? Taken to the extreme, the heirs of a deceased photographer would not be able to do anything substantial with that collection....and might be inclined to just pitch it into a dumpster, which I am sure happens with many photo collections.

If Photographer Fred Jones knows his days are numbered, shouldn't he be able to assign/sell/will ownership to someone who will (for the time being) survive, such that permission to use/publish/perpetuate that work is in the custody of someone who is living?

[vcode455]

This is an extremely gray area. Laws differ depending on when the image was taken and if it is published or unpublished. A will can define the copyright owner. Images that are published for viewing only will likely never be challenged as you can't claim any financial losses. There is also fair use and orphaned images. There are a lot of images out there that would never see the light of day from deceased individuals. Also, pretty much every historical society would never be able to use an image from a collection that wasn't their own and didn't contain a copyright transfer. I am not sure how they deal with that. I personally have no problem with images from a collection of a deceased individual if they are originals and given proper credit. Big Al dupes are a different issue. All the ones I have are plainly copyrighted on the slide.

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by Moffat Road

In reference to your first question, as far as I know, as long as a photographer gives permission for someone to post a photo online, it is okay. Obviously, a photo credit is much appreciated.

I don’t know all of the copyright laws, but a quick search online revealed a little more information:

https://www.format.com/magazine/reso...ight-law-guide

Answering your second question is this sentence from the article, “The photographer who pushed the button owns the copyright. A photographer will own that copyright throughout their life and 70 years afterwards.”

This is where these postings of other photographer’s photos from people’s collections on RailPics is not right. I believe the original photographer still owns the copyright.

If anyone has any other information, maybe they can share it here too.

Thanks,

Mike Danneman

Mike,

Thanks for clarifying this. I always thought that copyright ownership was transferred with the original piece of film (slide or negative). Your link and many others seemed to focus more on written works and digital images. I wanted to specifically clarify this, so I drilled a little more and found this discussion of Getty's attempt to copyright works obtained from the Smithsonian.

https://www.photoattorney.com/2007/0...copyright.html

A specific excerpt:

"We must remember that copyright is an intangible intellectual property. Negatives and chromes are tangible."

From https://thelawtog.com/fair-use-copyr...r-photography/

"It is important to note “acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.” US Copyright Office"

That article specifically deals with "fair use", which boils down to stating that the use of copyrighted material for non-profit educational purposes is not copyright infringement, and probably addresses Greg's concern for historical societies.

[RobJor]

Couple of sidelights.

When you send a photo into a magazine for feature or contest you give them permission for use including usually for promotional purposes, articles etc but you still retain ownership. I remember Cinthia Priest at RR Illustrated was very strict on that.

Trader sides are an interesting sidelight. I know several people who traded slides and all of sudden some long forgotten slide traded years ago shows up I mentioned my friend Terry Norton whom I posted a few photos but is not online. Looking through posts I see photos of DT & I, so I send him the link. Long ago an employee gave him information when he was in Ohio so he sent him slides.
Then years later the son posts the images. Brought back some good memories for him. I think most people look at this as a little serendipity.

Ebay - of course all kinds of stuff shows up there sometimes at Prices????
70's Milwaukee Road roster shots tho are a "dime a dozen", We were all taking them. Another friend Bill Clynes sent me a link for N & W Pocahontas going away steam shot for a lot of money. "Wow, I was standing next to him, I have the same shot."

Bob

[vcode455]

I have traded slides since 1985. Every once in a while an image of mine shows up on Facebook from the collection of someone who has passed away. I am OK with that as long as they give me credit and are not selling prints or something.

In most cases, I think copyright cases involve commercial use without permission. People don't want someone making money off their, or a family members work. Or they don't want it used to drag their name thru the mud. Virtually every image I have posted from someone no longer with us has generated an "OMG, thanks for posting that great memory" from family members and friends who have seen it.

[18 316]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

My long-standing pet peeve is correcting one or more rejections, only to get slammed with a killer rejection follow up, instead of doling out the killer first.

I had this, too. But maybe it is the result of different screeners looking at the different versions?

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by 18 316

I had this, too. But maybe it is the result of different screeners looking at the different versions?

I don't accept that as an excuse anymore. If an image is bad enough to have a killer flaw (PAQ, PIQ, Noise/Grain, Cloudy, and maybe one or two others), the initial screener should detect that flaw and issue a rejection on that basis. A non-killer initial rejection implies that the image is good enough to be corrected and resubmitted for acceptance.

Correcting and resubmitting images takes time for the contributor and the screeners. Why should the process waste this time and the good will of both parties?