Underexposed

[18 316]

I have a photo that was rejected for "Underexposed" three times. See the original upload and the version after two rounds of brightening (note that in the original version, I selectively brightened shadows at the very bottom of the image, but in the last, I went back to the original, that's why a few spots are darker). But I don't get it. I think the last version is already too bright. Should I brighten (or shadow-brighten) it again, or could the screener have an issue with something else entirely?

[RobJor]

Excellent image as are many from Austria.
Some of those foreground trees are dark doesn't bother me, but if you can dig out a little detail.
Generally what I know our eyes go to the brightest part of an image and the red power is certainly the proverbial cherry on top. Late light and long shadows add to the tension. The village with the church and the open fields vibrant colors just says Österreich.


This is your photo tho and at some point we have to decide how far we want to compromise our vision.
Bob

Maybe someone else can be more helpful but with 3 rejections it might be wise to put on side and come back later.

[KevinM]

I'm fine with this picture. As Bob noted, you could do something to brighten up that really dark group of trees at the bottom, but I wouldn't hit it with a hammer. Shadows are not a terrible thing.

WRT resubmitting..... My rule over the years has generally been that if something gets rejected, I edit and resubmit ONCE. If it fails a second time, I put it aside and maybe come back to it later, if I feel strongly enough. Not that I haven't gone through several iterations on a single photo before, but my approach evolved. I suppose because in the early days, I didn't have many photos, so each one was more "precious." Today, I have 6 TB spinning on my computer and hundreds of thousands of frames to pick from. Letting go is much easier.

Honestly, some of the rejections I see here on the forums puzzle me. I ask myself if this particular image is worse than the endless parade of 3/4 diesel wedges we see every day and my honest answer is "no way." I would ten times rather have photos like this in the data base, where there is something to look at besides a locomotive and ballast.

But what do I know?

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by KevinM

I'm fine with this picture...

Honestly, some of the rejections I see here on the forums puzzle me. I ask myself if this particular image is worse than the endless parade of 3/4 diesel wedges we see every day and my honest answer is "no way." I would ten times rather have photos like this in the data base, where there is something to look at besides a locomotive and ballast.

But what do I know?

Kevin - might I suggest this book available through Amazon, or where ever fine books are sold. It may not help get more images on RP (the title is a little bit misleading) but it may help explain why some do not while others do:



/Mitch

[Mgoldman]

I will (as often noted) proof my photos with "Auto-whatever" in my editing software.

Not much change with Auto-contrast, tone, nor color, though it did warm it a bit, maybe.

Next step, and an almost routine step - go to "Levels" and see how the image looks after setting the shadows and highlights - typically, go to "Levels" and type "1" for shadows to set the black point, and "1" for highlights, to set the absolute white point.

Maybe that'll do it? Or, point you in the right direction. I've been known to "select color range" and keep parts of a scene as is - the more pleasing original grass color, for instance, but allow the adjustment to take hold everywhere else, like the train, the buildings, ect.. You could dodge, burn, use the sponge tool for selective saturation, ect...



/Mitch

[br_railphotos]

In my short time here, I've found that RP (generally) doesn't like to see a significant population of pixels at the left half of the histogram, nor a significant portion which is clipped (black). This particular photo does exhibit some of that.

Using luminosity masks (turned into selections) and Camera Raw filter adjustments, I was able to selectively brighten the darker areas to balance the histogram better.

No telling if RP's would accept this edit or not, but I think it would have a better chance. Nice photo, BTW.

[RobJor]

Good edit, some fill in. But, I don't think that advanced editing skills should be required to get in a very nice basic landscape. Also this is near sunset so not sure a strict view
of the histogram is warranted(pet complaint). Shadows are dark with those type of trees and it is real.

.

Bob

[vcode455]

Yet this makes it in. https://www.railpictures.net/photo/769172/ Geez, compare the 2 images. The MLW image is rare, but it looks like a 3rd generation dupe. And a bad one at that. This site is getting absolutely dominated by a few big players lately.

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by vcode455

Yet this makes it in. https://www.railpictures.net/photo/769172/ Geez, compare the 2 images. The MLW image is rare, but it looks like a 3rd generation dupe. And a bad one at that.

Al Chione was a huge seller of duplicate slides, mostly from other people's originals. He would give the original photographer a cut of the proceeds, and did not retain the original slides. Although Chione is credited, I don't think he holds the copyright, and I doubt that these photos comply with RP's copyright/ownership policies.

[Milepost 58]

I scan slides for a friend, and know it can be challenging. Sometimes they degrade, or wash out due to being an old Agfa, but most of them I can do something with. This one almost looks like a watercolor painting or something.
Also, I didn't know that you could post images that you didn't take or own originals of.

[vcode455]

Doug, I have acquired numerous "Big Al" sets over the years. Most were of decent quality and came with a list detailing the shots. But I know I never labeled those slides properly. I could post them as there is some cool stuff there, but I only try to post images from my collection that are originals given to me from those who are no longer with us.

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by vcode455

Yet this makes it in. https://www.railpictures.net/photo/769172/ Geez, compare the 2 images. The MLW image is rare, but it looks like a 3rd generation dupe. And a bad one at that. This site is getting absolutely dominated by a few big players lately.

I consider Tom an online ""friend"", a Milwaukee midwest guy with so much detailed knowledge. In his defense I'd say he adds context, ie more information than would have come with the duplicate.

Having said that I say both him and the site could do themselves a favor with some discretion. Some of then are OK????, others should never posted period whoever owns them or not and am sad that Tom would post them. The other part is to space them out, sometimes 3 or so fill in top slots.

Since the "cat is out of the bag"
I have also noticed the second part also ie dominated by a few players. Now it seems so many contributors have been forced out, leaving a select few.
Variety in subject, style, location etc is the spice and that goes for SC and POTW(I can never see the sense of multiple awards for same photo I have already seen the darn thing). Reward a wide group of people will go a long way. An award for contributions and hard work can mean a lot.

Bob Jordan

[vcode455]

Bob,

Don't get me wrong. I'm a MILW fan and I can appreciate many of the rare images Tom posts. But if you were to place the MILW image and the one that started this thread side by side and guess which one was accepted, it really makes me scratch my head.

On the other point, let me say unequivocally, the photos the big players are posting are great. I'm just pulling for the "little guy" every now and then.......

[18 316]

Thanks to all for the suggestions! Well, it took two more attempts, but I finally got it accepted.

PhotoID: 770050 Photograph © 18 316