Unbeliveable Rejections

[alstom]

These rejections I can honestly say are STUPID. It is very obnoxious. It just does not make sense. They are not too narrow or too wide. Something is wrong with this screener. Sorry to come off sounding this intense, but it is just aggravating getting a rejection for a faulty reason.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1003471392
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=910465294
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=239414068

I explained my reasoning for vertical cropping in these two. They should be self explanatory. The screener knew I composed my shot like this for a purpose.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=800434689
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1219353035

And lastly - I need some serious help with how this is bad cropping.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1127479233

Again, sorry for being so intense. I am just aggravated by these incorrect rejections. I took 68 photos today, and these were the best, and I was really trying my best to get them in, so faulty rejections like these, set me off like a hydrogen bomb.

[foss0244]

Just resize them. They are a little too big, and there is NOTHING wrong with the screener. The one I downloaded and looked at was 1000x819 (when I cropped off the black bar) and if you read, it says it cannot be more than 768.

[Freericks]

RP.net has very specific size restrictions. Just recrop and resize to fit within those dimesions. You'll note this is technical issue, explained in the rejection.

On the last one, the train needs some more room on the bottom and left... someplace to go.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by foss0244

Just resize them. They are a little too big, and there is NOTHING wrong with the screener. The one I downloaded and looked at was 1000x819 (when I cropped off the black bar) and if you read, it says it cannot be more than 768.

Not true.

1024 x 819:

PhotoID: 221903 Photograph © Jim Thias

PhotoID: 220392 Photograph © Jim Thias

PhotoID: 218201 Photograph © Jim Thias

PhotoID: 217956 Photograph © Jim Thias

[foss0244]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Not true.

1024 x 819:

Interesting. So what was with that message then? Just because the dimension of the picture was a little strange?

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by foss0244

Interesting. So what was with that message then? Just because the dimension of the picture was a little strange?

I guess it really depends upon the composition. I recently had a shot rejected for this very reason and when I appealed and asked for an explanation, the reply was, "we would prefer to see dimensions closer to 1024x768 if possible."
I recropped the photo to 1024x683 and it got in.

1024x819 is 4:5 ratio, which is a common frame size (8x10, 16x20). I'm not sure what 1024x768 is, but I don't think it's a common ratio for frame sizes (or sensors).

[alstom]

Alright, will do. Sorry for the bad attitude earlier,

[SDavey]

I edit to 1024X768 because its the size for wallpaper on screen savers, and I use my shots for that purpose. Lately I have however been submitting to here at 1024X680 because it reduces the amount of dead space in photos.

[JBCagle7073]

1024x768 fits the aspect ratio for standard tvs and monitors. With the widescreen becoming the standard for both that may open up more avenues down the road.
That rejection reason could have been cropping except for the fact that it works with the composition, but I am assuming they felt a standard crop with less sky would have worked better for those shots. As for the last one I tend to agree with the others that have said more room on the left. In general objects that are in motion look odd if they don't have some space in the frame to move into. I like the framing with the signals.

At least it looks like the camera is working better now, and none of those are terminal rejections. Sometimes you learn more on how to improve by getting a few photos rejected than 50 in on the first try. Always keep in mind that they want to see the best possible shot that can be had from that spot any day, not just the day you were there.

[Andrew Blaszczyk (2)]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I guess it really depends upon the composition. I recently had a shot rejected for this very reason and when I appealed and asked for an explanation, the reply was, "we would prefer to see dimensions closer to 1024x768 if possible."

Can't get a better explanation than that. Sometimes, rarely, square is the way to go, but 1024 x < or = 768 is almost always doable.

[Slopes09]

I've come up with a method where I crop it however the heck I like, then check the dimensions to see if they fit within RP standards. If they don't, then I modify it until they do and I still like it.

[Benbe]

Maximal allowed height is 1000 pixels so that wouldn't make a rejection.
What makes is that apart from the one real portrait shot every other is nearly cropped squarly. In general, that should be avoided as it won't end up to be a balanced image. It might be too centered leaving no space apart from the subject for the viewer to look or the boundaries may be too close, too restrictive for the subject.
You can use quare cropping of course, but with a reason. On your shots I could crop off 20% from the top or imagine the photo to continue beyond your crop towards the sides to form a good 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio picture.
I ran through my favourite downloaded photos as well as my owns and didn't find a good rail photo cropped square. I think that with trains long and tall, the horizon just horizontal square cropping just doesn't work out.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)

Can't get a better explanation than that. Sometimes, rarely, square is the way to go, but 1024 x < or = 768 is almost always doable.

But 1024 x 819 is a standard ratio size for pictures. If that comes across as too tall or too big, what do you recommend the size be if we want to go with a 4:5 ratio crop?

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I'm not sure what 1024x768 is, but I don't think it's a common ratio for frame sizes (or sensors).

C'mon, Jim! That is just a 4:3 ratio, pretty common and standard for most digicams.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

C'mon, Jim! That is just a 4:3 ratio, pretty common and standard for most digicams.

MOST? Not the Rebel.

I'm not familiar with any frame (sensor or picture) sizes that are 4" x 3", 8 x 6, 12 x 9, 16 x 12, 20 x 15, and so on. Are Nikons 4:3 ratio? I'm going to guess that MOST Canon DSLR's are 4:6. 1024x683 gives you the ratio 4:6. That's why most of my pictures are cropped that way. Occasionally I like to go with the 4:5 standard, so I crop my pictures to 1024x819.

1024x819 gives you a 4:5 ratio for prints that are: 4 x 5, 8 x 10 (standard), 12 x 15, 16 x 20 (standard).

1024x683 gives you a 4:6 ratio for prints that are 4 x 6 (standard), 8 x 12 (not YET standard, but soon to be), 12 x 18, 16 x 24, 20 x 30 (a standard frame size I now see).

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

MOST? Not the Rebel.

In my understanding, or my observation of common usage, "digicam" is a term that refers to non-DSLR digital cameras. The massive preponderance of which are 4:3 (and why is that?).

As for cropping, I generally crop as the image tells me it wants to be cropped. If it is "near" 3:2 or 4:3 or 5:4 I might shift to the exact ratio if it doesn't hurt the shot - I figure if the screener sees the pixels they will see familiar numbers. But I don't always even do that. In general, if it is between 3:2 and 5:4 in ratio, I've never had a problem in the screening process.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

In my understanding, or my observation of common usage, "digicam" is a term that refers to non-DSLR digital cameras. The massive preponderance of which are 4:3 (and why is that?).

You got me there. I was thinking strictly DSLR.

So that begs the question...why make such a common ratio across the board for digi-cams that a frame size isn't readily available? What is the common consumer, with little to no photo editing skills, supposed to do? Do they have to crop EVERY photo they take before they can print it to fit in a standard frame size?

I said in my prior post that an 8x12 frame size (to along side 8x10) was a standard size that is soon to be. This is based on a conversation I had with a manager at a frame store a couple of months ago. She said that with the standard 4:6 ratio that many DSLR's have now, they were urging frame manufacturers to come out with 8x12 frames. I sure hope that follows through, because there are a LOT of shots I'd like to have framed that I'd prefer to keep at a 4:6 ratio, as I typically compose them that way when shooting.

Ok, this has gotten a little off the path of the original topic, but I guess that's the nature of a forum discussion.

So is Richard shooting with a digi-cam or a DSLR?

[Andrew Blaszczyk (2)]

Follow Mike W.'s method darnit! Crop it how you want and we'll tell you if you're wrong!

I've never resized using inches rather than pixels so I never realized 1024x819 translated into 10x8l; I always thought thats what 1024x768 did. Who knew! Learn something new everyday.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)

Follow Mike W.'s method darnit! Crop it how you want and we'll tell you if you're wrong!

I've never resized using inches rather than pixels so I never realized 1024x819 translated into 10x8l; I always thought thats what 1024x768 did. Who knew! Learn something new everyday.

So does that mean if you see a 1024x819 image now, you'll be less likely to reject it?

[JRMDC]

What I am curious about is why, after years and years of 3:2 film photography, did 6x9 and 8x12 frames never become common (4x6 has been common for a while), and what made 5x7 so common?. Heck, Jim, if 8x12 is finally coming out, well, it's about time and then some!

Don't those in-store printing machines just take their best guess as to where to crop, so that is what the consumer is stuck with?

[captadam]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Don't those in-store printing machines just take their best guess as to where to crop, so that is what the consumer is stuck with?

Some do, but some allow you to choose the crop via a touch-screen interface. On the rare occasions in which I use one of those kiosks, I crop at home and take in the edited version.

[randy]

I have a new 22" monitor that has a screen that's 11.5" x 18.625 (viewable) . I'm liking the way photos look as a screen saver, although they are a bit stretched of course. I had assumed that it was a 16:9, but that doesn't pencil out. I'm thinking of cropping some shots to this size and maybe learning how to mat/frame them.

What ratio do the rest of you come up with using my measurements? With most new monitors being rectangular we're going to have to deal with this sooner than later.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by randy

I have a new 22" monitor that has a screen that's 11.5" x 18.625 (viewable) . I'm liking the way photos look as a screen saver, although they are a bit stretched of course. I had assumed that it was a 16:9, but that doesn't pencil out. I'm thinking of cropping some shots to this size and maybe learning how to mat/frame them.

Sure, the inches are not quite right, but what are the maximum pixels? That would give the true (in application) ratio.

What ratio do the rest of you come up with using my measurements? With most new monitors being rectangular we're going to have to deal with this sooner than later.

Deal with what, exactly? And all monitors have been rectangular since, well, I think forever. It is just that some monitors are now being made in a "widescreen" format.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by randy

I have a new 22" monitor that has a screen that's 11.5" x 18.625 (viewable) . I'm liking the way photos look as a screen saver, although they are a bit stretched of course. I had assumed that it was a 16:9, but that doesn't pencil out. I'm thinking of cropping some shots to this size and maybe learning how to mat/frame them.

What ratio do the rest of you come up with using my measurements?

11.5" x 18.625 = roughly 6.48:4

And no, I didn't do any math to come up with that. I created a new file in photoshop at those dimensions and then started with 6:4 ratio using the Rectangular Marquee Tool and within 30 seconds I was able to whittle it down to 6.48 to get the rectangle perfect. I guess there's probably some mathmatical equation, but I've had a couple of beers and I'm not about to make my brain work any more than it has to.

[strikefour]

most widescreen computer monitors are 16:10 with screen resolution of 1440x900(17-19"), 1680x1050(20-22"), 1920x1200(22-27") and 2560x1600(30"). new hdtv's use a 16:9 ratio with resolution of 1366x768(720i) and 1920x1080(1080i&p) and a few notebooks use the 1366x768(16:9). my LCD is 1280x1024(5:4) while my crt is 4:3 (1024x768, 1600x1200, etc....)