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)
-   -   More rejects, your thoughts? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6208)

Chicago Railfan 11-24-2007 07:34 PM

More rejects, your thoughts?
 
This one contradicts itself. I see what the over sharpened part is, but blurry? If you can point out the blurriness, please tell me.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=450883&key=0

How is this poor image quality?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=450884&key=0

JRMDC 11-24-2007 09:06 PM

1: lots of power lines with jaggies, which sometimes happens when oversharpening. Also jaggies on the sides of the passenger cars also. The nose seems a bit soft.

2: the side of the 112 looks awful. If that is what it actually looks like, you need to say so in the remarks to the screener.

Chicago Railfan 11-24-2007 09:54 PM

Ok, thanks JRDMC! I re-did the METRA picture and did a slight softening on the power lines and touched up the METRA cars with a little painting, and appealed with CSX picture saying that that is what the engine looks like.

JRMDC 11-24-2007 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Railfan
Ok, thanks JRDMC! I re-did the METRA picture and did a slight softening on the power lines and touched up the METRA cars with a little painting, and appealed with CSX picture saying that that is what the engine looks like.

Painting????

What did you do?

Mustang11 11-24-2007 10:07 PM

For the first one, note how sharp the "Westomnt" text on the tank is compared to the "Metra". I think your focus may have been set for the tank and not the train so it may be a focus issue not a sharpening issue.

The second one looks like the saturation is a little too high. That could account for the grain on the front of the loco but I think it has a shot if you reduce it slightly.

Brian

Chicago Railfan 11-24-2007 10:35 PM

By painting, I used the paintbrush in PSP and did some hand coloring. That took away some of the sharpness affect.

I cleaned up the CSX and re-submitted that. i also sharpened the train, and softened the tower just a schtickle and re-submitted that too.

JRMDC 11-25-2007 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Railfan
By painting, I used the paintbrush in PSP and did some hand coloring. That took away some of the sharpness affect.

This sounds like it might be a form of digital manipulation which is against RP rules. Furthermore, I don't understand what you are trying to do - what are you coloring, what color was it, what color are you making it, etc. Perhaps I don't understand your jargon.

Darryl Rule 11-25-2007 12:43 AM

Well from the looks of the image that got accepted compared to the original rejection posted here, it looks like it was definately digitally manipulated, but it made it in. Are the rules for manipulation being loosened a bit perhaps?

JRMDC 11-25-2007 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl Rule
Well from the looks of the image that got accepted compared to the original rejection posted here, it looks like it was definately digitally manipulated, but it made it in. Are the rules for manipulation being loosened a bit perhaps?

The screener only sees the one shot, not old and new side by side.

EDIT: just found the accepted shot. Yikes! The screeners just plain missed it, I think.

Darryl Rule 11-25-2007 12:48 AM

Oh I know they only see the one. I was just kidding. But I would agree that the screeners must have been napping on this one. I think the original was better than the second one if looked at side-by-side.

Freericks 11-25-2007 01:01 AM

If I were you... now that it's been accepted, I would upload the original version in replacement. It just looks digitally manipulated.

Joe the Photog 11-25-2007 01:01 AM

Just to note that being rejected for oversharpened and blurry is not contradictory. Oversharpened is normally done in post processing while being blurry is uaully done in the field. And in this case, I suppose CR kept sharpening to compensate for the shot being blurry.


Joe

Ween 11-25-2007 01:53 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Wow. So that first shot magically became a panning shot?!? Nice try, CR, but I bet the admin will be sending you an e-mail shortly.

BTW, how long before this disappears:
[photoid=213194]

The original, non-panning shot is attached for comparison purposes...

Chicago Railfan 11-25-2007 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ween
Wow. So that first shot magically became a panning shot?!? Nice try, CR, but I bet the admin will be sending you an e-mail shortly.

BTW, how long before this disappears:
[photoid=213194]

The original, non-panning shot is attached for comparison purposes...

To be honest, I did not plan for that to happen. I did some stuff, that was the final result, and I like it!

Mike B. 11-25-2007 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Railfan
To be honest, I did not plan for that to happen. I did some stuff, that was the final result, and I like it!

Do you understand what the phrase 'digital manipulation' means?

If I was an admin, I'd ban you from uploading.

Cyclonetrain 11-25-2007 05:19 AM

Yeah, I remember when that Santiago Whatever guy got caught chopping photos when he used the same sky in several shots, not only did he get banned from uploading, he also got all his shots removed, ect.
Thats a really bad chop right there, and I hope it gets removed immediately.

M.L.Gabert 11-25-2007 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ween

BTW, how long before this disappears:
[photoid=213194]

Interesting, this would make a nice "HO" layout shot. All I can say that it amazes me how the screener did not catch the "completely" obvious alteration, and my shot's get rejected for a little shadow on the nose. :roll:

NicTrain35 11-25-2007 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclonetrain
See the attachment for what you should of done to BS the screeners.

How about not BS them at all?

Darryl Rule 11-25-2007 03:55 PM

I agree. If you can't get a shot worthy of being accepted here, move on and try again. Especially with a shot like the one being discussed in this thread. You could go out any day on that line and re-take this exact shot, and if do it as a pan if that is what you really want to do. No need to try to alter an image as much as this to try to get it in.

Chris Starnes 11-25-2007 04:54 PM

Thanks for pointing this issue out, guys. We'll deal with the image and photographer appropriately.

JimThias 11-25-2007 06:03 PM

Damn, I missed the "guilty" photo. CR, do you have it uploaded elsewhere? haha

FWIW, I like the original and don't think it's any more blurry or oversharpened than a lot of shots I see accepted daily. I may have cropped it a bit tighter, though.

Chicago Railfan 11-25-2007 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Damn, I missed the "guilty" photo. CR, do you have it uploaded elsewhere? haha

FWIW, I like the original and don't think it's any more blurry or oversharpened than a lot of shots I see accepted daily. I may have cropped it a bit tighter, though.

Yea.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/sho...aspx?id=964103

JimThias 11-25-2007 07:19 PM

That looks exactly like the reject above. Where's this photoshopped image people were commenting on above?

CNWFreak 11-25-2007 10:00 PM

The image CR linked you to is the rejected photo. The photo that was accepted he had manipulated the backround to apear as though the shot was a panning shot.

JimThias 11-25-2007 10:08 PM

Right. I wanted to see the "fixed" one, not the rejected one that is in the first post.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM.

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