Old 07-04-2005, 04:31 AM   #1
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default Bad motive? To whom?

I have to wonder sometimes, what defines a "bad motive" reject.

Just recently a close-up of a wheel bogey was accepted
www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=111303

Yet a photo of a caboose on display and a tower were rejected?

This is (insert expletive here) frustrating. I appealed the tower rejection based on there being a shot of Tower 55 in Ft. Worth accepted just last week. The caboose being kicked is just crap in my opinion. You'd think people on here just want to see roster shots, artsy landscape shots, or fancy night shots... sheesh!

www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=142407
www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=142419

So now where's the consistency?

www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=142414

This one was rejected for "foreground clutter". So WHAT? It's a good shot of a caboose on static display. Where was the "bad motive" on this? I recently had an appeal rejected and the screener commented "Everybody knows what the end of a locomotive looks like, try something original".

So doesn't everybody know what the trucks of a caboose look like?

Now that it's 0130 am here in Ashland, KY, lets see if I can get a good night shot (of a stationary locomotive) accepted...

Last edited by Adam Amick; 07-04-2005 at 04:40 AM.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:38 AM   #2
Super2000
Member
 
Super2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 84
Default

If not for the little section of rail at the bottom right of the tower shot, I might not know that it was a railroad tower. Just a thought.

The angle of the first caboose shot doesn't work so well for a caboose. It might work for a locomotive, where you can't see through the space between the trucks.

It's unavoidable, I know, but there's too much shrubbery in the second caboose shot. Maybe you could unload some of it on the Knights Who Say Ni.
Super2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:39 AM   #3
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Amick
I have to wonder sometimes, what defines a "bad motive" reject.
It's subjective. There are several screeners. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Just keep trying, and you'll do just fine.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:48 AM   #4
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super2000
If not for the little section of rail at the bottom right of the tower shot, I might not know that it was a railroad tower. Just a thought.
Uh, that's what the caption is for... For those who may not know what they look like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super2000
The angle of the first caboose shot doesn't work so well for a caboose. It might work for a locomotive, where you can't see through the space between the trucks.
The angle wasn't in question. The motive was. This is about the only angle you can get a shot of that caboose from. The ground slopes down away from it toward the river. So I took the shot with the sun behind me (to avoid the "poor lighting" rejection) and framed it squarely so the hearld is clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super2000
It's unavoidable, I know, but there's too much shrubbery in the second caboose shot. Maybe you could unload some of it on the Knights Who Say Ni.
Funny guy. Can you meet me down there tomorrow with a shovel and we'll pull some of them out, take a couple of shots, and replant them?

Well... At least my night shot got accepted. I'll resubmit the others later in the day.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:51 AM   #5
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4kV
It's subjective. There are several screeners. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Just keep trying, and you'll do just fine.
Yeah? But you'd think they'd know if tower or caboose shots were "generally accepted" or not. After all, tower is a category and I didn't see anything in the submission guidelines that say you MUST have a locomotive in the picture.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:56 AM   #6
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

To me the tower shot is not really too bad, other than it might be a little dark. But that doesn't cover the reason for rejection. Maybe try going back there and getting a little bit more of the trackage in the shot somehow, give it an all around railroad context.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:57 AM   #7
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Ok, now here's what blows this all out of the water... ("blows" being the operative word.

www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=111374

Why wasn't this rejected for "Bad motive"??? What a bunch of crap! (And the picture of Deshler Tower was great, don't get me wrong)

Where's the consistency!?!? Someone should get sent back to "Screener 101" class.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:59 AM   #8
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

It shows a diamond, maybe that helps. As for consistency, that's something you just need to get used to. It happens all the time, someone else's shot, which is seemingly worse than yours, get accepted, while yours gets canned. Happens all the time. My advice is to just move on.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 04:59 AM   #9
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

You say those were all rejected for "bad motive"? I would have to say "bad angle" on the DT&I caboose, and even the tower, though it's not too bad.

As far as the C&O caboose, someone ought to tell those folks down there to get rid of those bushes, that or take some lessons in landscaping!! YUCK!

Sorry about that....
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:03 AM   #10
cmherndon
Banned
 
cmherndon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lawrenceburg, KY
Posts: 883
Send a message via AIM to cmherndon Send a message via Yahoo to cmherndon
Default

Adam, whining about your rejections isn't going to help you much at all.
cmherndon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:04 AM   #11
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Amick
Ok, now here's what blows this all out of the water... ("blows" being the operative word.

www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=111374

Why wasn't this rejected for "Bad motive"??? What a bunch of crap! (And the picture of Deshler Tower was great, don't get me wrong)

Where's the consistency!?!? Someone should get sent back to "Screener 101" class.
All right, there, simmer down...

Like I said before, I think "bad angle" would've been a better rejection reason on your tower.

Last edited by ccaranna; 07-04-2005 at 05:07 AM.
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:10 AM   #12
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccaranna
...I think "bad angle" would've been a better rejection reason on your tower.
Well... Looks like it was accepted. The angle I took my shot at was the same as the one of Deshler Tower. Otherwise, how do you figure the angle is bad? (in your opinion)
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:13 AM   #13
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmherndon
Adam, whining about your rejections isn't going to help you much at all.
No? Then maybe pointing out MAJOR inconsistencies will help get all the screeners on the same page. I'll "whine" when warranted, thank you.

And on appeal the RU Tower shot was accepted. Because it didn't make sense to claim "Bad motive" for a tower picture when another one is accepted less than an hour later.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:14 AM   #14
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

Well, there you go!

Image © Adam Amick
PhotoID: 111380
Photograph © Adam Amick


Congratulations!
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:17 AM   #15
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Yah you betcha!

The only difference in the two angles I see is that the Deshler shot is from farther back, so you can see more roof. I would have had to cross 5 more tracks to get back that far, and I was being quick about standing where I was crossing two.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:23 AM   #16
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

Adam, you're right on your angle theory, that's what I would say. Also, the Deshler tower is a little more photogenic, and it's not your fault that the Russell one needs a little TLC. That would have been a challenge for anyone to make look good.

If I was going to attempte to get a shot on it, I would've really had to work it from all angles. Sometimes it takes time, but eventually something good and surprising comes out of it. Maybe thinking of an angle other than a "roster" angle would have helped bring out some of the charm here.

But that's moot, it got accepted!
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:24 AM   #17
FullService
Junior Member
 
FullService's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 16
Default

Dude, you want some cheese with that wine? The amazing part is that you seem to have appealed your shot, then came here badmouthing before you even knew the results of the appeal. Even if you didnt appeal and just submitted it again, do you really think that when you present yourself in such way in a public place will really help your cause? It says a lot for the screeners just because it wasnt kicked back the second time due to "bad attitude"

Somebody needs to hire a babysitter here on the forums....geezzzz

Last edited by FullService; 07-04-2005 at 05:26 AM.
FullService is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:25 AM   #18
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FullService
Somebody needs to hire a babysitter here on the forums....geezzzz
Seems like that has been necessary as of late in many circumstances.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:26 AM   #19
Ru1056
Senior Member
 
Ru1056's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 438
Send a message via Yahoo to Ru1056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Amick
No? Then maybe pointing out MAJOR inconsistencies will help get all the screeners on the same page. I'll "whine" when warranted, thank you.
Stop wasting your time. If you search back into the threads you will find several that deal will same issue you area bringing up. Your not the first.

I had some rejected today that I thought would make it, but didn't. Frustrating yea? Worth making myself look like a 2 year old in the forums? No.

They way I look at it, if the site doesnt want my photos, thier loss. There are other places you can post your photos.
__________________
Billy

JREB.ORG. Moderated discussion forums about NS & CSX

Remember the ugly photo god.
Ru1056 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:28 AM   #20
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ru1056
There are other places you can post your photos.
Yeah, try rrpicturearchives.net. For one, they do not screen, so anything goes. It's a nice site, don't get me wrong. It's not really the site, just some of the pictures uploaded that make many of us roll our eyes. But I use it all the time for cloudy shots, or things that get rejected here, or shots I don't even try here. And you'd be surprised at how many of the ones that get rejected here are accepted with great fanfare there. Railpictures.net is a wonderful site, but it is not the only way to get your shots seen.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:32 AM   #21
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FullService
Dude, you want some cheese with that wine? The amazing part is that you seem to have appealed your shot, then came here badmouthing before you even knew the results of the appeal. Even if you didnt appeal and just submitted it again, do you really think that when you present yourself in such way in a public place will really help your cause? It says a lot for the screeners just because it wasnt kicked back the second time due to "bad attitude"

Somebody needs to hire a babysitter here on the forums....geezzzz
I addressed three photos with my post, with one being appealed and going through on common sense.

I don't get where some of you get off complaining about those of us with a legit question or gripe. If you don't like what we have to say and don't have something positive to add to the discussion, then don't waste your time.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:33 AM   #22
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

I second the comment 4kV made. There are other sites, and don't let rejections here get your blood pressure in a tizzy. Life's too short for that.
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:35 AM   #23
Adam Amick
Member
 
Adam Amick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 37
Send a message via Yahoo to Adam Amick
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ru1056
Stop wasting your time. If you search back into the threads you will find several that deal will same issue you area bringing up. Your not the first.

I had some rejected today that I thought would make it, but didn't. Frustrating yea? Worth making myself look like a 2 year old in the forums? No.

They way I look at it, if the site doesnt want my photos, thier loss. There are other places you can post your photos.
You're right (except about the 2 year old stuff, unless you're referring to someone else). Ultimately I go railfanning for me, not to please some screener with no name or face.

I'll eventually add the shots to my own group's web site, for the railfans out there... not the photo critics.
Adam Amick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:39 AM   #24
fotoboy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: a boxcar.
Posts: 26
Default Really?

[quote=4kV]Yeah, try rrpicturearchives.net. For one, they do not screen, so anything goes. It's a nice site, don't get me wrong. It's not really the site, just some of the pictures uploaded that make many of us roll our eyes./QUOTE]

Why's that?

Super Van
fotoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 05:42 AM   #25
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

[quote=fotoboy]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4kV
Yeah, try rrpicturearchives.net. For one, they do not screen, so anything goes. It's a nice site, don't get me wrong. It's not really the site, just some of the pictures uploaded that make many of us roll our eyes./QUOTE]

Why's that?

Super Van
Why's what?
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV 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 02:55 PM.


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