Updated Rejection Reasons - Page 4

Missabefan · 06-04-2014, 03:37 PM

Well, I have to say the "new" rejection list is for the most part better as far as telling us which way to go ( horizon, color, contrast, etc.) and it's also good to know I can still nail down a good old fashioned PEQ rejection.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...06&key=5145790

AND screener roulette can still be played.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=484112&nseq=2

Mgoldman · 06-04-2014, 04:14 PM

Some thoughts....

The fact that the night shot is perhaps more dramatic trumped the PEQ issue.

The night shot is not cropped so tight around the engine - you can see nearly down to the walkway.

Since you have multiple screeners - there's no saying whether or not the rejected shot would've been accepted and the rejected accepted had you posted in reverse order.

In regards to the daytime shot - can you crop so that the hood is not cut off as tight? Or perhaps not cut off at all?

And last - Chris earlier asked Ron how a shot barely unlevel could end up being considered a BS rejection. My response (now in pictures) is when a shot equally if not more so unlevel is later accepted as yours was.

Hopefully, now that we know WHICH way unlevel, we can simply resubmit without all the guess work when our shots are unlevel by undetectable amounts.

Now if only "Horizon unlevel" rejections had a "Perspective /distortion" notation. I'm sure some shots will never be correctable by a simple rotation leading to the continuation of frustrations with the screening process.

/Mitch

Ron Flanary · 06-04-2014, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Now if only "Horizon unlevel" rejections had a "Perspective /distortion" notation. I'm sure some shots will never be correctable by a simple rotation leading to the continuation of frustrations with the screening process.

/Mitch

That was the frustrating part of getting this shot accepted:

PhotoID: 483953
Photograph © Ron Flanary

I had rotated the image to level the rivet line below the cab (above the "E5" class plate). However, the handrails (and maybe the water tower in the background) were leaning ever so slightly to the right. OK---this meant I had to go to the lens correction tool and screw around with it to introduce another level of distortion to offset the initial distortion, otherwise, it wouldn't be accepted. In short, a simple rotation didn't cut the mustard. And that, Mitch, lends credence to your last sentence, because "leveling" the shot wasn't good enough.

OK...not to call out Casey's aerial shot of the units crossing the Dan River at Danville,,,

PhotoID: 483995
Photograph © Norfolk Southern Corp

...but---would this shot warrant lens correction to deal with the extreme distortion of the wide angle lens? Of course not...because it's the very nature of a wide angle lens to distort. Also, this shot is as much creative as it is documentary. That said, in many cases, screeners might reject a wide angle shot for "unlevel" because of lens distortion, rather than level.

At what point is lens correction expected....or not expected...to address a distortion issue caused by a wide angle lens? I don't think there's a solid answer to that question.

Mgoldman · 06-04-2014, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

At what point is lens correction expected....or not expected...to address a distortion issue caused by a wide angle lens? I don't think there's a solid answer to that question.

Again - according to Jim Thias, a professional levelologistian, Casey's shot is NOT level. The distortion is acceptable since it's intentional and it was done "in camera" via use of a fish-eye lens. It's the fact ? that the shot actually is unlevel according to Jim in regards to the "considerably leaning tower" in the center of the shot.

At what point should lens correction be addressed? I'd say only when it detracts from the image. In other words, if it's done with intention and it's appealing it stays. If that's the way the lens captured it and no amount of rotation is going to fix it, I'd suggest RP notate a policy whereby those images will be rejected with a request to correct with the caveat that they be accepted on appeal rather then force some folks to bend time and space to get the shot on RP. We'll leave such physics to the younger generation of rocket scientists.

/Mitch

hoydie17 · 06-04-2014, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Again - according to Jim Thias, a professional levelologistian, Casey's shot is NOT level. The distortion is acceptable since it's intentional and it was done "in camera" via use of a fish-eye lens. It's the fact ? that the shot actually is unlevel according to Jim in regards to the "considerably leaning tower" in the center of the shot.

At what point should lens correction be addressed? I'd say only when it detracts from the image. In other words, if it's done with intention and it's appealing it stays. If that's the way the lens captured it and no amount of rotation is going to fix it, I'd suggest RP notate a policy whereby those images will be rejected with a request to correct with the caveat that they be accepted on appeal rather then force some folks to bend time and space to get the shot on RP. We'll leave such physics to the younger generation of rocket scientists.

/Mitch

I'm reasonably certain this was not done with a fisheye lens... this has all the hallmarks of a GoPro mounted to a drone set on VWFOV. GoPros are well known for their ridiculously high contrast ratios. Mine annoys the hell out of me with it when I do my snowboarding and motorcycle vids.

troy12n · 06-04-2014, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoydie17

I'm reasonably certain this was not done with a fisheye lens... this has all the hallmarks of a GoPro mounted to a drone set on VWFOV. GoPros are well known for their ridiculously high contrast ratios. Mine annoys the hell out of me with it when I do my snowboarding and motorcycle vids.

Camera Make = DJI
Camera Model = PHANTOM VISION FC200

I think it's the same one that local video guy Danny Harmon (DistantSignal on YouTube) has...

I saw one flying around Spencer a couple times

Ron Flanary · 06-04-2014, 11:14 PM

I thought Go Pro was a brand of condoms for porn stars. Just shows what I know about new stuff...

JRMDC · 06-04-2014, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

I thought Go Pro was a brand of condoms for porn stars. Just shows what I know about new stuff...

It also shows how much you know about old stuff!

JimThias · 06-05-2014, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

It also shows how much you know about old stuff!

Well, he DID say he was kind of into bondage, leather and whips earlier in the thread.

Freericks · 06-05-2014, 02:49 AM

Jim Thias - professional fluffer.

hoydie17 · 06-07-2014, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

Camera Make = DJI
Camera Model = PHANTOM VISION FC200

I think it's the same one that local video guy Danny Harmon (DistantSignal on YouTube) has...

I saw one flying around Spencer a couple times

Well, you won't be seeing anymore drone shots from NS until they buy a new one. I'm told the one they had ended up in the Susquehanna River today while trying to get a shot of 34A with the DLW HU leading.

Mgoldman · 06-07-2014, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoydie17

Well, you won't be seeing anymore drone shots from NS until they buy a new one. I'm told the one they had ended up in the Susquehanna River today while trying to get a shot of 34A with the DLW HU leading.

Oh, no! Where is NS going to come up with a thousand dollars? ; )

/Mitch

On a side note, anyone want to go fishing this weekend in Harrisburg?

hoydie17 · 06-07-2014, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Oh, no! Where is NS going to come up with a thousand dollars? ; )

/Mitch

On a side note, anyone want to go fishing this weekend in Harrisburg?

Maybe they're taking a page out of Mike's (Danneman) book and exploring rail photography from submarines?

Mgoldman · 06-07-2014, 01:29 AM

Doesn't NS have a "hook"/wrecker that they can bring to the bridge over the Susquehanna and use to fish the drone out?

/Mitch

oltmannd · 06-07-2014, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Doesn't NS have a "hook"/wrecker that they can bring to the bridge over the Susquehanna and use to fish the drone out?

/Mitch

No, but they could call Hulcher or RJ Corman...

Dennis A. Livesey · 06-07-2014, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

I thought Go Pro was a brand of condoms for porn stars. Just shows what I know about new stuff...

B&H sells these like hotcakes.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...rch=yes&sts=ps

I would love to try and get that elevation you just can't get otherwise.

DJI (the company that made this "drone" phenomena happen.) in order to maximize profits and minimize signal conflicts, is making it's own camera for the quadcopters so you will see less GoPro on quadcopters.

miningcamper1 · 06-08-2014, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

...professional fluffer.

Never on "What's My Line" for sure. Some things are better left as a mystery.

hoydie17 · 06-08-2014, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

B&H sells these like hotcakes.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...rch=yes&sts=ps

I would love to try and get that elevation you just can't get otherwise.

DJI (the company that made this "drone" phenomena happen.) in order to maximize profits and minimize signal conflicts, is making it's own camera for the quadcopters so you will see less GoPro on quadcopters.

Useless to me if I can't mount a PocketWizard to the camera... And I shudder to think how bad the image would look at 1600 ISO.

Yes, I would be crazy enough to do a night shot from a drone. Just to see what would happen.