So, we're actually going to call this backlit?

[StL-rail]

Seriously, backlit? I would legitimately like to talk to the screener on how he came to that conclusion. I'm at a loss. Thoughts?

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...91&key=7307192

[bigbassloyd]

It's not backlit at all, but the editing is a bit over the top and the image isn't extremely sharp. So without some work you're gonna get rejected again.

You'd have an argument otherwise, considering the first place people's choice this week. I guess the voting is down to 4 or 5 people nowadays...

Loyd L.

[StL-rail]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

It's not backlit at all, but the editing is a bit over the top and the image isn't extremely sharp.
Loyd L.

Now that you mention it, I do see it's a little soft. I might just save this one for later. I just couldn't believe the "backlit" rejection. That's just lazy.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

It's not backlit at all, but the editing is a bit over the top and the image isn't extremely sharp. So without some work you're gonna get rejected again.

You'd have an argument otherwise, considering the first place people's choice this week. I guess the voting is down to 4 or 5 people nowadays...

Loyd L.

Apologies if anything in this sounds harsh, but when I clicked on the link, I instantly thought: "ugh".

I agree with Loyd's comments on the editing. The photo has a washed-out look to it. It almost looks like the file used in the edit was a JPEG vs. raw. Some of mine looked like this years ago when I shot only JPEG and edited using an earlier version of Photoshop Elements. The results often looked more like a painting than a photo. The early PSE shadow reduction tool was especially harsh. Also agree on the sharpness. Only the top front of the loco looks reasonably sharp. Everything else is really soft....almost blurry.

This is one of those shots that would have me dissecting everything that went into the image, from the camera settings to the workflow.

I can't immediately see the EXIF on this shot, but I did review some of your recent submissions and they all have a similar look. The EXIF I saw on one shot had you shooting at 1/250th, f/3.5 and ISO 100. Honestly, on most trains, I would want more than 1/250th unless it is very slow-moving. I like to be no slower than 1/400th and I prefer to be higher than that. I also like to be at f/8, just for some depth of field. Even f/5.6 would be MUCH better than 3.5. Forget about ISO 100. That's for tripod shots. On a sunny day, I am at ISO 200-400. On cloudy days it could be 400-1600, depending on how dark it is and how fast my train is running. On most reasonably current cameras, ISO 200 should be virtually indistinguishable from ISO 100. Even ISO 400 should work just fine on even the lowest-end of current cameras. If the EXIF on that one shot was representative of how you've been shooting, I think you can get your image quality up significantly, just by making some changes in the camera settings you shoot.

[Joseph Cermak]

I agree with the prior comments about the overall edit and possible camera settings issues. Would also add that the center composition isn't doing this image any favors. Could easily get to a more ROT comp with a slight shift to take some off the bottom and maybe the right.