Old 05-12-2014, 05:43 AM   #1
ACR_Ted
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 80
Default Backlit?? Not hardly :)

Here are 2 rejects for backlighting....yes they were shot on a hazy day with weak sun, but they are not backlit! And I thought older stuff was granted a pass with somewhat lower standards ....

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...87&key=8922204

and

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...85&key=3509450

Oh well...comments?

Ted
ACR_Ted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 06:04 AM   #2
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
...or does not feature enough light on the nose or visible sides of the subject.
Legit rejections.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 11:04 AM   #3
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Why do you think those are not legit?
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 12:38 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

The screeners only have so many categories. The key is always "poor lighting" - the "backlit" is a common subcategory but isn't the only possibility.

The Hiawatha - nasty haze all over the shot. Perhaps Low Contrast Enhancement may help (= USM of 20/60/0).

The LS&I, looks hopeless.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 01:01 PM   #5
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACR_Ted View Post
Backlit?? Not hardly
Not hardly? So in other words, you're saying they are backlit?

Last edited by JimThias; 05-12-2014 at 01:04 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 02:21 PM   #6
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

Those are top of 24 shots, especially that LS&I unit. What happened to giving some slack to fifty year old slides.

Chris Z
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 10:24 PM   #7
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Z View Post
Those are top of 24 shots, especially that LS&I unit. What happened to giving some slack to fifty year old slides.
Gonna disagree with you.

Especially the roster shot of the U25C.

The totally blown out sky, lack of contrast and grain kill it for me. The sky is so blown out at first glance it looked like someone notorious for submitting shots with blown out skies
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 10:43 PM   #8
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Gonna disagree with you.

Especially the roster shot of the U25C.

The totally blown out sky, lack of contrast and grain kill it for me. The sky is so blown out at first glance it looked like someone notorious for submitting shots with blown out skies
But I think the subject matter would trump the deficiencies. No?

Chris Z
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2014, 10:54 PM   #9
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Z View Post
But I think the subject matter would trump the deficiencies. No?
I would say not.

I think it would work better at a site like locophotos.com, which dedicates itself to roster shots.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 03:55 AM   #10
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Not hardly? So in other words, you're saying they are backlit?
It should be "hardly," rather than "not hardly." (double negative)

I'm not nuts about either shot, although the subject matter is fine. They probably just didn't check the correct rejection box.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 06:36 AM   #11
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
It should be "hardly," rather than "not hardly." (double negative)
Not hardly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
They probably just didn't check the correct rejection box.
Both ARE poorly lit - admin needs to lose the "backlit" in this rejection and make it a rejection in itself.

Chris - you asked, "How does RP keep from frustrating patrons"?

"Comment from screener" or save yourself some effort (and perhaps a little character) and add an optional statement within the rejections when the image has merit:

"This is a great shot, one we'd love to accept to our database - would you consider tweaking the image to resolve the following perceived issue(s):"

The passenger car (aside from an excusable "bad crop /poor composition") seems suitable for the database if the CONTRAST is tweaked. Otherwise, for a color photo from a HVP ("High Value Patron") taken 49 years ago - I'd say nostalgia and subject matter - and retention of a well received patron would merit it's inclusion, at least, on appeal.

As for the LS&I shot - again, poor lighting applies, but more appropriately, "over exposed" might be more accurate and easier to tweak. And a comment from the screener or a more welcoming rejection might see better retention of "stuck up photographers". It should be obvious that this is likely one of the oldest LS&I images in the database if accepted after some respectful prodding /tweaking and tolerance.

/Mitch

Last edited by Mgoldman; 05-13-2014 at 07:13 AM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 10:41 AM   #12
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
It should be "hardly," rather than "not hardly." (double negative)
Correct. The song title "Can't Hardly Wait" by the Replacements has always bugged me. And then there's the movie of the same name...

I don't see why these shots can't be accepted with a little more tweaking. The sky just needs to be toned down in both of them, and maybe a little push of a saturation would help.

Last edited by JimThias; 05-13-2014 at 10:43 AM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 12:15 AM   #13
ACR_Ted
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 80
Default

Thanks for the grammar lessons . And yes, it is likely the 'backlight' reject covers more than just backlighting. Neither of the 2 shots are backlit, but the lighting is poor from the cloudy/hazy day. I just thought that being older somewhat rare stuff it might fly, but it didn't. So be it...

Ted
ACR_Ted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 12:29 AM   #14
Firefighter1019
Senior Member
 
Firefighter1019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 118
Default

What about Black and White for the city one? Just a thought
Firefighter1019 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 10:08 PM.


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