Old 12-01-2017, 09:21 PM   #1
mersenne6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default Rejection for noise - need help understanding

Message deleted by author

Last edited by mersenne6; 12-01-2017 at 09:29 PM. Reason: picture not showing up
mersenne6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 09:26 PM   #2
mersenne6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default

Well, so much for that. I thought the correct way to reference a photo was [photoid=xxxxxx] but I guess not.
mersenne6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 09:31 PM   #3
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lasalle, Qc
Posts: 615
Default

Don't think it works for rejections.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 09:33 PM   #4
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mersenne6 View Post
Well, so much for that. I thought the correct way to reference a photo was [photoid=xxxxxx] but I guess not.
That only works for accepted photos. For rejections, you need to copy the URL and paste into the post.
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 10:14 PM   #5
mersenne6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default

Ok, thanks.

Let's try this again.

The first picture was rejected as being too dark

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...80&key=1151892

So I attempted to lighten it a bit

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...03&key=2431970

and it was rejected as too noisy. My problem is that I can't figure out what the screener is looking at with respect to noise. I'm just trying to "see" better to avoid submitting sub-par pictures in the future.
mersenne6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 11:02 PM   #6
jac_murphy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 369
Default

It's certainly no less grainy than a particular shot sitting at the TO24 right now. There is a bit present in the sky, however.

You might have some compositional issues, though. There's a fair amount of space on the right, as well as some top and bottom, that could be trimmed.

As for the exposure, I'd selectively brighten everything except the yellow nose of the locomotive to avoid turning the headlights into oversized blobs.

Fix these, and they might overlook the grain.

-Jacques

Last edited by jac_murphy; 12-01-2017 at 11:04 PM.
jac_murphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 02:02 AM   #7
magicman_841
Senior Member
 
magicman_841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 1,024
Default

I assume you got an undersharpened rejection (600 mm and 1/160s ) and you sharpened it to 11, causing the grain issue.

Still, it's not very sharp and has a lot of dead space on the right. Either get closer to the signals or wait for the train to get closer. Show us that water tower?
__________________
Mathieu Tremblay
Choo photos
magicman_841 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 05:35 AM   #8
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 474
Default

My exif shows 200-400mm lens at 600 on D800 which would not be correct? so not sure of data but ISO if correct at 200 could have been bumped.

I think it has a lot of good elements so maybe if you go back and reprocess it, crop a little could work even tho once I get those pair of rejections pretty hard to overcome.
Might be better to wait a bit, I have a bunch that got accepted after a wait and rework.

As an aside, for me preferred to this:

Image © Matt Landry
PhotoID: 639286
Photograph © Matt Landry


I keep looking at it and don't "get it".

Bob

Last edited by RobJor; 12-02-2017 at 05:38 AM.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 03:30 PM   #9
mersenne6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default

The focal length and exposure time are correct. I didn't get a rejection for under sharpening. He was moving dead slow so the raw image is good.

The distance between the grade crossing and the signal is such that if you want that perspective you have to have a long lens. I appreciate everyone's response. I decided to try to implement some of them and we'll see what we'll see. Thanks again.
mersenne6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 04:46 PM   #10
mersenne6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default

Well...so much for Cascada. No go. Again thanks for all of your suggestions/observations.
mersenne6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 05:15 PM   #11
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post

I keep looking at it and don't "get it".

Bob
If that's the best IQ I could muster at 600mm, I'd quit.

Loyd L.
__________________
I may not be the greatest railroad photographer ever, but I'm certainly a much nicer person.

American Rails dot com - A fantastic website with tons of information and photographs related to American railroads and locomotives.
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 09:36 PM   #12
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post

Image © Matt Landry
PhotoID: 639286
Photograph © Matt Landry


I keep looking at it and don't "get it".

Bob
Roller-coaster trackage is cool! Fave.
__________________
flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11947249@N03/

RP Photos: www.railpictures.net/miningcamper1/
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 12:58 AM   #13
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 474
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mersenne6 View Post
Well...so much for Cascada. No go. Again thanks for all of your suggestions/observations.
Here is the cure for too dark.
Image © Kevin Burkholder
PhotoID: 639851
Photograph © Kevin Burkholder


But going back to your rejections, I think it has been shown that the rejection given is not always the sole cause for rejection. I think there would be a general agreement that 1/165th is too slow for 600mm unless you were on a tripod and the train was stopped. Also like I mentioned, I found once a cycle of rejections starts there is no escape with the best hope is to try again later.
Too dark, lighten it up, too noisy, correct noise, too dark.......

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 01:05 AM   #14
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 474
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper1 View Post
Roller-coaster trackage is cool! Fave.
I like them too, quality, with good light and a pleasant, realistic use of compression like:

Image © Craig Williams
PhotoID: 527901
Photograph © Craig Williams


Over 8000 views short but a winner not a we.......

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 02:49 AM   #15
mersenne6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default

RobJor - I agree-I'll let it go. As for the setup - tripod, train barely moving faster than a person could walk - also cable release. Again thanks for taking the time to respond.
mersenne6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 01:38 PM   #16
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,745
Default

f8, 1/160, ISO 200. The only way you should be seeing that much noise is if this was underexposed and a LOT and you tried to lighten it up too much. I'm curious to see the pre-processed image.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias

Last edited by JimThias; 12-04-2017 at 01:42 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.