RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Peq (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15022)

harrisonjh 02-16-2012 02:42 AM

Peq
 
1 Attachment(s)
PEQ - Would appreciate an opinion or two on this one.

Thanks - Joe Harrison

JRMDC 02-16-2012 02:55 AM

It's a mess! :)

I will freely admit that my preference is toward the simpler shot and this is a melange. But still, no. First of all, that thing on the left, a wing, Jordan spreader type thing, we are looking at the backside and it is a dark hole. The angled thing in the front, I don't know what it is, it is cutoff in an unpleasing way, and anyway I want to see more of it's interface below, with the rail and so forth, as that is where the action it, what it does, and I can't tell what that is now. The blown-out sky is doing you no favors, bad in general and downright jarring against the black wing.

I see a lot of potential for some sort of rivets and flakes texture shot. And other types of shots also! But you didn't get anything that works for me or comes that close, sorry.

Joe the Photog 02-16-2012 02:59 AM

It's the dictionary definition of PEQ -- simply not hwat RP wants to publish. There is a place for that kind of photography, but Railpictures isn't it. That's not to say your photo is bad or that RP is wrong.

troy12n 02-16-2012 03:18 AM

Totally blown out sky really kills it. You got good detail on the plow or whatever it is, but the sky is blinding

harrisonjh 02-16-2012 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 151695)
It's the dictionary definition of PEQ -- simply not hwat RP wants to publish. There is a place for that kind of photography, but Railpictures isn't it. That's not to say your photo is bad or that RP is wrong.

Thanks for that. The right subject matter for the site but ... Is it pleasing to the eye? Does it stir the imagination? The more conservative business end of the equipment or something a bit different? Had I shot the front end only you wouldn't have this great shot of the rear end and so on.

It's all very subjective of course but I do believe that for all of the great, and imaginative work on the site, there is some stuff, and not just mine, that goes the wayside for no reason.

troy12n 02-16-2012 03:45 AM

See, I though this was the definition of PEQ

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=640103838

harrisonjh 02-16-2012 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 151698)
See, I though this was the definition of PEQ

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=640103838

What do you mean exactly? I find what you have to say very interesting but I'm not quite getting it. Is it an Ok shot, could be used somewhere else but out of context here, or just very PEQ? There is quite a difference between PEQ and just out of context for the site. PEQ means "poor (esthetics) quality shot". Period.

If I put it on the right paper, boarded and laminated at say, 24x36 and put it under the right light, I'm sure it would turn a few heads. So rather than give it a PEQ without any further explanation, why not just say: "We don't publish this type of work here. Nice but no thanks."

JRMDC 02-16-2012 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harrisonjh (Post 151700)
So rather than give it a PEQ without any further explanation, why not just say: "We don't publish this type of work here. Nice but no thanks."

If you read your PEQ a bit more closely, you will find that it actually says what Troy's says:

Quote:

Poor Esthetic Quality: This rejection reason means that the photo is of low esthetic qualities, or is simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish.
emphasis added

PS: I thought Troy was doing nothing more than lightheartedly saying "I got one too". Troy, it may never work for RP, but you took it at f/1.8; how about at least trying f/2.8 and see if the entire "Beech Grove" becomes in focus? I think it would make it a better shot, for whatever venue, including your PC.

Mr. Pick 02-16-2012 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 151698)
See, I though this was the definition of PEQ

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=640103838

The second I saw this shot Troy I thought, "Canon 50mm 1.4 lens wide open," and by the exif data looks like that's what it may have been. I have one of those too, and generally love it, but the chromatic aberration on that lens wide open is truly staggering.....as witnessed in this shot!

troy12n 02-16-2012 01:22 PM

I knew it would get a PEQ before I even submitted it, I just submitted it to show the OP the kind of stuff that would get it I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pick (Post 151707)
The second I saw this shot Troy I thought, "Canon 50mm 1.4 lens wide open," and by the exif data looks like that's what it may have been. I have one of those too, and generally love it, but the chromatic aberration on that lens wide open is truly staggering.....as witnessed in this shot!

Yes, it's a 50/1.4 @ 1.4, and I thought about fixing the purple fringe, but I figured it would get rejected anyway so I didnt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 151701)
PS: I thought Troy was doing nothing more than lightheartedly saying "I got one too". Troy, it may never work for RP, but you took it at f/1.8; how about at least trying f/2.8 and see if the entire "Beech Grove" becomes in focus? I think it would make it a better shot, for whatever venue, including your PC.

Yes and no, I honestly wasnt expecting it to get accepted before I even submitted it. Just kind of showing how an artsy-fartsy type shot gets treated here most of the time, nothing else. I actually have exposures from 1.4 to 3.5 and even F8 and F11 should I have wanted to submit it with more depth of field, but more depth of field wasnt the point.

I honestly dont know what i was thinking here, just trying different things. I wasnt even going to submit it until I saw this thread and thought I would throw out a shure fire AF shot that would get rejected as a "me too", if people think it's merit worthy, I am all ears. I also have a similar shot of the leading engine.

harrisonjh 02-16-2012 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 151698)
See, I though this was the definition of PEQ

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=640103838

Sincere apologies Troy. I mistook what you were saying.

Still - I don't see a blown out sky, I see a backdrop for some old rlwy. equip.

I did read the whole PEQ. They should "drop" the first part. The second part I can understand and accept as a first and last explanation for rejection and wouldn't bother going further with it.

troy12n 02-16-2012 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harrisonjh (Post 151715)
Sincere apologies Troy. I mistook what you were saying.

Still - I don't see a blown out sky, I see a backdrop for some old rlwy. equip.

Let me clarify, the blown out sky is not why they rejected it, it was just one of the reasons I didnt like the shot. It's overwhelming, especially at the top of the unit near the hand brake.

What does and what does not get the PEQ is strictly the opinion of the screener. I tend to agree there should be a "we dont like this shot" rejection. It's been discussed here many times, but like a lot of other things we complain about, nothing becomes of it.

harrisonjh 02-17-2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 151716)
Let me clarify, the blown out sky is not why they rejected it, it was just one of the reasons I didnt like the shot. It's overwhelming, especially at the top of the unit near the hand brake.

What does and what does not get the PEQ is strictly the opinion of the screener. I tend to agree there should be a "we dont like this shot" rejection. It's been discussed here many times, but like a lot of other things we complain about, nothing becomes of it.

No need to clarify. I understand that not everyone will like every shot. This is very subjective stuff.

There is a vast difference however, between poor esthetic quality and "or" is simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish. Almost like an easy 2 part answer for someone who can't make a hard decision.

Put quite simply: Reason for Rejection - We do not publish this type of material.-

Having said that I still have a great shot, in my opinion, unless I want to run the gauntlet in Forums. It just isn't getting on RailPictures.net A little public relations goes a long way when you're dealing with sensitive photographers, and I'm obviously not the first to bring it up.

Regards

Hatchetman 02-17-2012 12:22 AM

They don't give a &@#$ about submitter's "feelings." I have no idea what their M.O. is.

JimThias 02-17-2012 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harrisonjh (Post 151745)
It just isn't getting on RailPictures.net A little public relations goes a long way when you're dealing with sensitive photographers, and I'm obviously not the first to bring it up.

That's why photographers should have thick skin. You can't and will never please everyone.

harrisonjh 02-17-2012 04:36 AM

Well don't give up you guys. The status quo wasn't changed over night. My sensitivity is not necessarily a weakness, or lack of thick skin. It could be that a simple change in wording would go a very long way in resolving an issue that I bet, bothers allot of people.

The image in question was just rejected from another site as well but, with an explanation and advice on a possible fix. Whether I agree with them or not, I really did appreciate their approach.

Joe the Photog 02-17-2012 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harrisonjh (Post 151745)
Put quite simply: Reason for Rejection - We do not publish this type of material.-

Let's think this thing through. If that was the entire PEQ rejection, what would it clear up? Folks would come to these forums irate and more confused. They'd search the database and come up with some random shot that they think is exactly like the one they submitted. It would probably either make things worse and not clear up anything at all. And while I agree at times the screeners might could take a quck minute to explain to the photog where their shot was given the PEQ, this is a web site, not a photography class run by a teacher whose job it is to make you a better photographer. Their job here is to accept or reject photographs.

harrisonjh 02-17-2012 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 151793)
Let's think this thing through. If that was the entire PEQ rejection, what would it clear up? Folks would come to these forums irate and more confused. They'd search the database and come up with some random shot that they think is exactly like the one they submitted. It would probably either make things worse and not clear up anything at all. And while I agree at times the screeners might could take a quck minute to explain to the photog where their shot was given the PEQ, this is a web site, not a photography class run by a teacher whose job it is to make you a better photographer. Their job here is to accept or reject photographs.

All of the other possible reasons for rejection are very descriptive. I think probably that the word "or" in the PEQ rejection should be replaced with the word "and". No mixed message there.

Hatchetman 02-17-2012 02:30 PM

Something like "this is not the type of subject matter we generally accept" is a lot better than "Poor Esthetic Quality."

Joe the Photog 02-17-2012 03:27 PM

Poor quality seems pretty desciptive to me

Hatchetman 02-17-2012 03:38 PM

Poor quality and not what we want to publish are two totally different things. It would be like having "poor color and/or bad cropping" as a rejection.

Joe the Photog 02-17-2012 03:43 PM

OK, show of hands. Who doesn't understand that PEQ essentially means, "No thanks." It is kinda clear cut as is. One part means they don't want the shot. The other means the same thing.

JimThias 02-17-2012 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman (Post 151807)
Poor quality and not what we want to publish are two totally different things.

And that's why they have "or" between the two. Do they have to point out which one exactly it is? I don't believe so. Generally, a PEQ is the kiss of death for a photo getting on RP, so you might as well just accept it and move on to your next shot.

Just because they say "poor quality" that doesn't necessarily mean the photograph is poor in ALL contexts of the photography world. I've always interpreted it as meaning "poor quality" relative to the RP guidelines.

Hatchetman 02-17-2012 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 151823)
just because they say "poor quality" that doesn't necessarily mean the photograph is poor in ALL contexts of the photography world. I've always interpreted it as meaning "poor quality" relative to the RP guidelines.

If that's the case, they should just say "doesn't meet our acceptance standards." No need to call your shot "poor," especially when we're giving them free photos to support their for-profit enterprise.

Joe the Photog 02-17-2012 08:49 PM

Esthetic is the key word here actually.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.