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)
-   -   "Poor Esthetic Quality"?!?!?!?!?!?!?! (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9931)

BurlingtonNorthern 06-08-2009 11:11 AM

"Poor Esthetic Quality"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
 
Why do they keep rejecting my pictures for the same reason, specifically, “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.”

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=175683231

I really don’t know what “poor esthetic quality” means but can assure you that I took the best picture allowable under the conditions.

Specifically, I took this picture on Friday, June 5, 2009 during the closest think to a break in the rain that occurred that day. When I went back on Saturday, this hi-railer had moved. So while I wish I could have taken one in perfect lighting, such lighting just wasn’t available.

Furthermore, while I also wish that I could have taken a perfect 90 degree shot of this neat hi-railer, standing back far enough to do so would have required that I walk into a concrete retaining wall and stand four feet into a hillside.

That being said, I think this picture is of as good or better quality then many of the pictures I see on this forum.

Despite the fact that all my submitted photos are of this quality or better, they all get rejected for the same reason, “Poor Esthetic Quality”.

Can someone please explain to me what “esthetic Quality” is and how my pictures, using this one as an example, are “poor”?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=175683231

asis80 06-08-2009 11:23 AM

They don't want that picture on their site.

Ben

BarrySr 06-08-2009 11:28 AM

Here we go again.

I'm running low on popcorn; hold off until I go out and get some more...

:-P

asis80 06-08-2009 11:39 AM

Hahaha, hurry up Barry. lol

But BN, seriously. Look at your shot again, then look at some of the photos on here. Do you think it fits? I'm not trying to put you down by that statement, but honestly think, does this fit? It doesn't at all. PEQ states what it states, it's just not what they want on the site. It's usually stuff like this. In my opinion I think most of the time it's things "dealing" or "relating" to the railroad but just doesn't quite fit the bill either by not being executed well enough or being artsy, or dull seen everyday railroad equipment. Yours goes into the latter. Lets theoretically say it wasn't nabbed for PEQ, the lighting is just bad. If you want accepted shots without too much of a struggle, shoot in daylight hours. Preferably in the morning or late afternoon/early evening this time of year. Although rain shots are cool, this one isnt. It's making the shot look horrible with it's quality, and even without the rain I don't think it would look right. And I say, as a disclaimer, shoot with some sun only as a little boost to help get a photo on. Shoot in any type of weather you'd like, with the correct in field and processing techniques it's easy to get any type of weather shots on. Just look at Travis Dewitz's shots, as an example. Or any of ours. You'll see a few of ours with clouds. But, not knowing your level or any of your other shots, I don't know what you're capable of. Do you have any other shots on the DB?

Ben

BurlingtonNorthern 06-08-2009 12:16 PM

Ben,

While I don’t currently have any other photos in the queue, I’ve submitted photos of everything from a bottle steamer (at the Whippany Rail Museum), to a NYS&W GE 25 ton (also at the WRM), to a GG-1 (parked along Rt. 287), to the NS/NYS&W refueling facility in Hackensack, to a Russell Plow parked outside that refueling facility and all manner of trains passing through that facility.

I use a Canon Powershot A590 and, admittedly, the primary purpose of these shots is to provide information on a prototype I wish to model or to record a train I find to be “neat”. Regardless, any photo I submit on this forum is rejected for the same reason, specifically “Poor Esthetic Quality”, despite the fact that, whenever possible, I get shots that are backlit, free of shadows, level, properly cropped, and, in my opinion aesthetically pleasing while focused of the details of the rail equipment itself (this is the extent of my photographic skills…I have no formal or informal training…I was just given the camera last Christmas and started photographing prototypes I wanted to build or found interesting).

Since I’ve saved about 10GB worth of other peoples photos to memory sticks (I intend to model some aspect of each picture, either the scenery or one of the trains themselves) I just figured I’d give back…

asis80 06-08-2009 12:30 PM

I hope you mean "not backlit". Eh, I don't think the shots you are taking are what the viewers of RP are looking for. Do you have a railroadpicturearchives account? I've seen anything and everything over there. But for now BN, sorry, RP isn't for the type of shots you are taking. Minus the train part you mentioned, lets see some of those.

Ben

JimThias 06-08-2009 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)
I really don’t know what “poor esthetic quality” means but can assure you that I took the best picture allowable under the conditions.

Specifically, I took this picture on Friday, June 5, 2009 during the closest think to a break in the rain that occurred that day. When I went back on Saturday, this hi-railer had moved. So while I wish I could have taken one in perfect lighting, such lighting just wasn’t available.

Furthermore, while I also wish that I could have taken a perfect 90 degree shot of this neat hi-railer, standing back far enough to do so would have required that I walk into a concrete retaining wall and stand four feet into a hillside.

So, because of all this you believe RP owes you something?

Quote:

That being said, I think this picture is of as good or better quality then many of the pictures I see on this forum.
Really? Would you mind providing some examples of the pictures in the database that are of less quality than this overexposed, rain-soaked truck?

jnohallman 06-08-2009 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)

I really don’t know what “poor esthetic quality” means but can assure you that I took the best picture allowable under the conditions.

Specifically, I took this picture on Friday, June 5, 2009 during the closest think to a break in the rain that occurred that day. When I went back on Saturday, this hi-railer had moved. So while I wish I could have taken one in perfect lighting, such lighting just wasn’t available.

Furthermore, while I also wish that I could have taken a perfect 90 degree shot of this neat hi-railer, standing back far enough to do so would have required that I walk into a concrete retaining wall and stand four feet into a hillside.

Having tried to get a number of hi-railer shots on myself, I have to say that hi-rail vehicles just aren't RP's thing unless there's something really interesting going on in the scene with them. As others have said, sometimes PEQ just means they don't want the picture because the subject doesn't fit what they want on the site. We can argue all day about whether hi-rail vehicles are "railroady" enough or not, but ultimately its up to the admins, and I think their view is that they're just trucks that happen to be on rails, and not what they want on the site.

Jon

NYSubway18 06-08-2009 03:39 PM

Having been nailed with a few PEQ's lately, I can feel your pain. It is by far the most frustrating rejection because it doesn't give you any real feedback and provides no real reason other than "We don't like it". Biggest hurdle is you need to forget about how rare or difficult it was to get the shot. RP doesn't care about that at all. They only care about great pictures. In particular they don't want a site full of so-so roster shots. That being said, this photo has several problems and have a feeling they just felt it was easier to PEQ it than list all of them. It's blown out and over-exposed. It's cropped way too tight (doesn't matter that you had no way to back up further - they don't care), common cloudy day shots are very difficult to get in, and it looks over-sharpened. See the jaggies on the rails? I know it's frustrating, but keep trying. You'll become a much better photographer in time. :)

Joe the Photog 06-08-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)
Why do they keep rejecting my pictures for the same reason, specifically, “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.”

Well, in a way, this is the easiest rejection to understand. They clearly say it's either not good enough or it's just not want they want. (The frustrating part is they don't tell you why they don't like it.)
Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)
I really don’t know what “poor esthetic quality” means but can assure you that I took the best picture allowable under the conditions.

We all feel your pain, but that has no bearing on getting a picture in the database. It's just an interesting story.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)
Can someone please explain to me what “esthetic Quality” is and how my pictures, using this one as an example, are “poor”?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

We'd obviously have to see the other pictures to comment on those, but some above me have pointed out the flaws in the hi-rail picture linked here. It's cropped way too tight, there is no light to speak of, it's not a very interesting subject in my own tastes and the sky behind the truck and above it is blown out.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)
That being said, I think this picture is of as good or better quality then many of the pictures I see on this forum.

That's a matter of opinion. No one yet on this forum -- not to mention the screener -- seems to agree with you. If you'd like to point some of those other photos out here, please do. However, that still won't have anything to do with this shot getting in or not.

BurlingtonNorthern 06-08-2009 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asis80 (Post 91484)
I hope you mean "not backlit".

Ben

As I said, I have no real photographic training or instruction...What is it called when the sun is behind me? Based on the instructions on the backs of disposable cameras I was under the impression this was the optimal way to take pictures...

asis80 06-08-2009 05:09 PM

When you say shots that are backlit, everyone here is going to think you're shooting INTO the sun. Yes, you are correct, shoot with the sun to your back.


Ben

JRMDC 06-08-2009 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asis80 (Post 91499)
When you say shots that are backlit, everyone here is going to think you're shooting INTO the sun. Yes, you are correct, shoot with the sun to your back.

And, since the OP wants to learn, a fuller/clearer explanation. Backlit, means shooting into the sun, so the subject is backlit, i.e., the light is coming from the back of the subject, as one is shooting into the sun.

Anyone intending to spend time on RP should also know that RP deems "backlit" situations that others might call sidelit. If there is a visible part of the subject that is not receiving light, RP calls that backlit regardless of the direction the light is actually coming from.

Red Granite 06-08-2009 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91479)
That being said, I think this picture is of as good or better quality then many of the pictures I see on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 91493)
That's a matter of opinion.

Exactly, Joe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91498)
As I said, I have no real photographic training or instruction...

If this is true, how can you know your photos are good or better than others here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91498)
What is it called when the sun is behind me? Based on the instructions on the backs of disposable cameras I was under the impression this was the optimal way to take pictures...

You want the sun behind you, which is "frontlit". Your shot is "backlit", meaning you're facing the sun. Additionally, not to pile on, but the sky is over-exposed (I dislike the term "blown out").

Please understand I don't mean to be harsh with my comments. I think you need to learn more about basic photography other than "instructions on the backs of disposable cameras".

Good luck

BurlingtonNorthern 06-08-2009 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 91487)
Really? Would you mind providing some examples of the pictures in the database that are of less quality than this overexposed, rain-soaked truck?

I intend no insult towards Franklin Adams but when I checked the “newest pictures” today these two were at the top of the list and I can’t even see a train in the pictures, just a blur passing by some tents.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286753&nseq=14

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286755&nseq=12


I would think that a (reasonably) detailed photograph of a unique hi-rail vehicle which could be a really neat subject for a model would be of greater use to model railroaders then would be a blur, regardless of how artistically done that blur was.

Then again, that’s just my opinion, coming from my bias (namely model railroading) and we all know what opinions are like…

Joe the Photog 06-08-2009 05:54 PM

Dude;

Those Franklin Admas shots are some ofthe best work here the last few days. It tells a story of campers camping out by the railroad tracks. The shots are crisp and clear and they tell a story. We don't have to *see* the train in every railroad shot. Frankly, those are some of his best work on here lately.

Yours is a grey day, cloudy sky roster shot of a truck with railroad wheels. Given the right circumstance, one could make it the subject of a neat photo, but the circumstances you shot it in, through no fault of your own, is right

JimThias 06-08-2009 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91502)
I intend no insult towards Franklin Adams but when I checked the “newest pictures” today these two were at the top of the list and I can’t even see a train in the pictures, just a blur passing by some tents.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286753&nseq=14

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286755&nseq=12

Seriously? :lol:


Quote:

I would think that a (reasonably) detailed photograph of a unique hi-rail vehicle which could be a really neat subject for a model would be of greater use to model railroaders then would be a blur, regardless of how artistically done that blur was.

Then again, that’s just my opinion, coming from my bias (namely model railroading) and we all know what opinions are like…
RP doesn't consider the potential for modeling when it comes to accepting an image. Have you ever heard of www.rrpicturearchives.net? That site would be perfect for your overexposed truck shot.

JRMDC 06-08-2009 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 91503)
Those Franklin Admas shots are some ofthe best work here the last few days. It tells a story of campers camping out by the railroad tracks. The shots are crisp and clear and they tell a story. We don't have to *see* the train in every railroad shot. Frankly, those are some of his best work on here lately.

Yours is a grey day, cloudy sky roster shot of a truck with railroad wheels. Given the right circumstance, one could make it the subject of a neat photo, but the circumstances you shot it in, through no fault of your own, is right

Just to show that there is a breadth of opinion, I do not share Joe's enthusiasm, and for that matter I have little enthusiasm for most streak shots.

Opinions and tastes vary, and the tastes of RP (which lean towards streak shots) do not lean toward hi-rail equipment, much less poorly lit and composed (yes, the wall, but so what, just a bad location then) hi-rail shots. A different site, oriented toward modeler-helpful shots, say, might have an entirely different view.

EMTRailfan 06-08-2009 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91502)
I intend no insult towards Franklin Adams but when I checked the “newest pictures” today these two were at the top of the list and I can’t even see a train in the pictures, just a blur passing by some tents.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286753&nseq=14

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286755&nseq=12


I would think that a (reasonably) detailed photograph of a unique hi-rail vehicle which could be a really neat subject for a model would be of greater use to model railroaders then would be a blur, regardless of how artistically done that blur was.

Then again, that’s just my opinion, coming from my bias (namely model railroading) and we all know what opinions are like…


RP is about great photographs with trains in them, not so-so photos of detail roster shots to model. RP will accept detail roster shots, but they HAVE to be perfect in lighting, composition, etc. Others have pointed out the flaws in your photo. If it was perfect I still don't think it would be in just because as others have said, it is a high rail. Maybe if you had a photo of it doing something like setting new ties out or something.

Now, do you have any photos on RP so we could compare this one to your accepted ones? You maybe understand better what RP likes if it is pointed out in your own photos.

Joe the Photog 06-08-2009 06:04 PM

Take a moment and see how these hi-rail shots compare to yours --

[photoid=226390]

[photoid=83226]

[photoid=237372]

Chase55671 06-08-2009 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91502)
I intend no insult towards Franklin Adams but when I checked the “newest pictures” today these two were at the top of the list and I can’t even see a train in the pictures, just a blur passing by some tents.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286753&nseq=14

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...286755&nseq=12

Heh... Those two shots submitted by Franklin Adams are both very neat compositions and it is clearly visible that a train is passing. That's the thing with night photography, the streaks, etc. are very nice whenever they're properly composed as they both appear to be in the shots he submitted.

I suppose this would just be some random headlights possibly coming from a car or truck around the corner?

[photoid=285932]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurlingtonNorthern (Post 91502)
I would think that a (reasonably) detailed photograph of a unique hi-rail vehicle which could be a really neat subject for a model would be of greater use to model railroaders then would be a blur, regardless of how artistically done that blur was.

Then again, that’s just my opinion, coming from my bias (namely model railroading) and we all know what opinions are like…

RP likes creativity. They do not like poor quality roster shots of hi-railers in horrible lighting. They really don't like hi-railers at all as others have already clearly stated. They've accepted a few hi-railer images, although a train has been visible and/or the composition has been pretty nice.

Chase

EMTRailfan 06-08-2009 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 91509)
I suppose this would just be some random headlights possibly coming from a car or truck around the corner?

[photoid=285932]

Chase


Those probably are from your car's headlights. I really hate those Xenon bulbs when they're coming at me at night.;)

Joe the Photog 06-08-2009 06:10 PM

A lof of us keep talking about cloudy day shots. If the shot is creative enough and the subject is rare, then it has a chance, as in the hi-rail in the last shot I linked. The truth is very plain. Your shot does not measure up.

JimThias 06-08-2009 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 91509)
I suppose this would just be some random headlights possibly coming from a car or truck around the corner?

[photoid=285932]

Hmm...are we learning the truth behind the lighting in this shot? :twisted:

NYSubway18 06-08-2009 06:41 PM

Quote:

the sky is over-exposed (I dislike the term "blown out").
Yeah, I've got to learn to use the proper photography terms. ;) I tend to use my video editing terms - whites that are too bright are "blown out" aka overexposed in photography and blacks are "crushed" which can mean the shot is underexposed, but not always. In video and sometimes in photos, shots are exposed OK, but the whites do get "blown out" but more commmonly I see shots that are overall OK, but the blacks are "crushed" and all detail is lost - especially in the trucks of a locomotve.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.