Old 08-11-2022, 08:05 PM   #1
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default Really

First this..... https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...15&key=1491621

So I sharpen it just a little and get this... https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...32&key=7722071

May be the straw that breaks the camel's back

BTW, I see Tom Farence pulled all his good MILW stuff and everything else.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2022, 11:08 PM   #2
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
First this..... https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...15&key=1491621

So I sharpen it just a little and get this... https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...32&key=7722071

May be the straw that breaks the camel's back

BTW, I see Tom Farence pulled all his good MILW stuff and everything else.

Wow, I did not know that about Tom. What a loss!. He is one of the great Milwaukee guys. So much history and detail. Not like something I might post, oh west bound at. he would have info about the crew or the train or something that happened.

I don't see a problem with yours. I don't know if there is some automated screening algorithm? But you also have a lot of cool historical photos.
I can usually tell yours just by subject matter and appreciate the effort. Rejections like this one can wear people down.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2022, 11:17 PM   #3
B7BBQ
Member
 
B7BBQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 33
Default

I can see where they're coming from on the first one for sure, and I agree that sharpening it was a step in the right direction. I'm not confident enough to comment on the compression issue they mention in the second rejection, but I will say that I don't think the tree shadow on the nose of the locomotive is helping your case.
__________________
Photos now. Sleep later.

Flickr
B7BBQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2022, 11:27 PM   #4
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,021
Default

Oh late light and a shadow or two are spice of life. It is not a roster shot. I have sometimes tried photo of interesting pattern of shadows and light of course rejected.


Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2022, 01:36 AM   #5
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default

This is one of my favorite WSOR shots. I guess I just don't see a lot of people who view it saying "how the hell did that get here?"......
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2022, 12:26 PM   #6
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
This is one of my favorite WSOR shots. I guess I just don't see a lot of people who view it saying "how the hell did that get here?"......
Exactly.

Don't want to start another topic but:

Maybe on shaky ground as this goes back to a type of threads that were dropped but I don't think much of the photo of the week. Exposure, sky and clouds look "wrong" plus the whole left side is just bare trees? Just don't see the appeal. Plus it goes back to 2019 maybe as a current winter photo: best I would say it is OK??????

Bob

Any thoughts:


Image © Andrew Faulk
PhotoID: 809348
Photograph © Andrew Faulk
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2022, 04:14 PM   #7
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,225
Default

Remember, the PoTW is subjective and it's basically a call made by just one of the Admins. As I understand it, it is not a committee effort. Clearly, Admin liked it, and I think he makes an honest attempt to try to spread the PoTWs around a bit, so it's not always the same photographers getting that spot. The shot does have an interesting perspective with the other rail line down below, the river, some buildings, etc. I'm not in love with it, I don't find it spectacular, but I'm not surprised that somebody might like it a lot.

My issues with this image are basically associated with the edit. It's a winter scene shot at 1/500th @f/10 and ISO 200. Since I shoot at f/8 most of the time, that's like a shutter speed of 1/800th at f/8, which for a December shot, is probably underexposed. And on my display, the shot looks underexposed. Check out the gravel and the rail close to the bottom of the frame. Too dark. I would also have opened up the shadows a bit. It just looks dark and muddy. If I had the raw, I think I could make this shot pop a lot more in about 30 seconds.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2022, 08:12 PM   #8
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default

Exposure looks OK on my screen. Any more "pop" and it would make Velvia slide film look dull and boring.

Still not see the pixilation in my shot.....
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2022, 02:03 PM   #9
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default

And this gets accepted? C'mon...... https://www.railpictures.net/photo/809799/

Last edited by vcode455; 08-13-2022 at 02:19 PM.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2022, 03:56 PM   #10
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,009
Default

I definitely see that the first shot needs some sharpening. That has actually been an issue for me lately as me and my eyes get older and I don't always see the sharpening issues with my own shots. One thing I look at is the ballast and if it looks "muddled" to me, I add sharpening. Too much compression could come from repeatedly working on the same files and resaving it instead of "Save As." It could also be the same sharpening ise that a screener sees differently. I agree about the errant shadow on the nose. I'd probably let this one go if it were mine.

The Andrew Faulk shot is not one of his best. it seems like a really random Picture of the Week. He's got some great stuff though.
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2022, 05:41 PM   #11
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default

That image was only edited once. Still not seeing the pixilation on my second shot, nor has anyone I've shown it to. And yet the shot I just mentioned gets in? Completely blown out sky, nothing in focus. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2022, 07:54 PM   #12
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,009
Default

It's a website you choose to participate in. Comparing your shot to one that got in does not accomplish much other than pissing you off.
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2022, 10:29 PM   #13
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default

Again, this started off as a question to see if anyone sees the pixilation or compression that is referenced. The other image is referenced as my blurry first image is way sharper than the one posted.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2022, 11:16 PM   #14
TedG
Member
 
TedG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: central Merlin
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
Again, this started off as a question to see if anyone sees the pixilation or compression that is referenced. The other image is referenced as my blurry first image is way sharper than the one posted.
I can't see pixellation, but if I save the two examples you provided, the file size is only 664 KB and 884 KB, respectively, which is much smaller than I would expect. So I think there's some compression sneaking into your process somewhere along the line.

/Ted
TedG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2022, 12:33 AM   #15
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedG View Post
I can't see pixellation, but if I save the two examples you provided, the file size is only 664 KB and 884 KB, respectively, which is much smaller than I would expect. So I think there's some compression sneaking into your process somewhere along the line.

/Ted
Good point about the small file size. If you want a "Really?" moment, how about this rejection reason from earlier this week?

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...06&key=5831949

One unit trains have a very high likely hood of being front coupled, SMH. Their loss. I moved on. You can't argue with the "logic" of that rejection.
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2022, 04:10 AM   #16
ATSF666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
Good point about the small file size. If you want a "Really?" moment, how about this rejection reason from earlier this week?

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...06&key=5831949

One unit trains have a very high likely hood of being front coupled, SMH. Their loss. I moved on. You can't argue with the "logic" of that rejection.
Joe, there is something "off" on your processing of the shot. I'm not sure if I can describe it, but it looks like maybe too much shadow tool or something like that.
__________________
ATSF666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2022, 04:11 AM   #17
ATSF666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
And this gets accepted? C'mon...... https://www.railpictures.net/photo/809799/
I wouldn't even consider submitting something like that.............
__________________
ATSF666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2022, 11:07 AM   #18
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedG View Post
I can't see pixellation, but if I save the two examples you provided, the file size is only 664 KB and 884 KB, respectively, which is much smaller than I would expect. So I think there's some compression sneaking into your process somewhere along the line.

/Ted
The rejection could be automatic if the file size drops too low?

We all "know" but sometimes forget you should not save and resave "jpg"s as each save degrades the image. Save should be at max.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2022, 02:55 PM   #19
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 113
Default

I have had many images accepted in the 300-400 KB range, so I don't think it is that. Most of my scanned slides end up in that range. I posted the image elsewhere to very favorable comments, so........ life goes on.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2022, 12:41 PM   #20
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 478
Default

I would agree that I don't necessarily see the compression in that shot, looks like reasonable image quality. However if it was me, the shadow across the nose would kill it. Wouldn't be hard to clean up in PS though if desired.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2022, 01:43 PM   #21
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
I see the issue with both. I do cheat and use my really big fancy monitors at work though.

The shadows across the nose kinda sucks too.

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

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2022, 04:51 PM   #22
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,021
Default

Certainly there are different levels of critique of photos.

I think it is good photo with that kind of light and setting plus no objection to the shadow as I don't think it so distracting and would be expected in that light. Not sure bigger file would have helped.

Luckily Greg recovered with another version.

However, these "tight" rejections can have consequences but I guess there is always someone else.

Bob

Last edited by RobJor; 08-18-2022 at 07:55 PM.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2022, 11:04 AM   #23
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
Remember, the PoTW is subjective and it's basically a call made by just one of the Admins. As I understand it, it is not a committee effort. Clearly, Admin liked it, and I think he makes an honest attempt to try to spread the PoTWs around a bit, so it's not always the same photographers getting that spot.
Kevin, I used to beleive that, but my personal experience makes me tend to feel that the sharing of the PoTWs is not as magnanamous as you indicate. I received three SC's and two POTW's in 2015 and 2016. Since then, I have had a grand total of zero.

I am not so vain as to think that I am on a level with several of the best photographers here,but I have posted quite a few shots in the past six years that I felt had a chance of getting the staff's attention. It seems that the definition of "best photos on the internet" is not weighted to include solid images that really compel people to want to have a closer look. Although my images don't get the attention of the screeners, I have thought that success with the viewers may get attention for POTW, but my hopes never materialize. The one image that solidified this notion got over 10K views in the first week, and several comments, including "This is fantastic!" from Chris K.

Image © Doug Lilly
PhotoID: 762186
Photograph © Doug Lilly


Of course, Tuesday came and went and another of my images went unnoticed. That really demotivated me, but my habit of posting two submissions continued.

A couple of months ago, I submitted an image that certainly was not award-worthy, but it was not another wedgie. It received a composition rejection. I recropped and got a PAQ!

Name:  DSC_7723-1.jpg
Views: 197
Size:  356.9 KB

That did it. I have overcome my awful habit of posting two images daily here.
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.

Last edited by Decapod401; 08-23-2022 at 11:07 AM.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2022, 12:04 PM   #24
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,021
Default

Doug that is so cool. Not unusual to see animals running when a train comes but very hard to get them in the frame like that. I am sure that would have grabbed a lot of attention. I think it is funny that someone can pose their kids waving at a train and get accepted(hokey),cute I guess but something like yours gets rejected.

Bob Jordan
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2022, 01:12 PM   #25
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post

A couple of months ago, I submitted an image that certainly was not award-worthy, but it was not another wedgie. It received a composition rejection. I recropped and got a PAQ!
You should have appealed and stated that a couple of the cattle were female, and RP never rejects a photo with a female in it..

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

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd 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 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.