Old 09-09-2007, 05:03 PM   #1
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default things that make you go hmmmm!!

can someone explain these
Pic #1 got rejected for:
Poor Esthetic Quality: This rejection reason means that the photo is of low esthetic qualities, or is simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish.
ok, which is it?
but yet I see a rail road crossing signal with no train in the picture is ok,
not to mention the monkey picture from a few weeks ago!

pic #2 is rejected for Bad Contrast: The image suffers from either too much or too little contrast. again which one is it!

I like to work off these rejections but these are all over the board!

PIC#1 http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=417171&key=0
PIC#2 http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=417255&key=0
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 05:12 PM   #2
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default more hmmmm

and to add to this, I see a similar pic is ok but I get the:this is "simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish.

accepted http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...200712&nseq=12
rejected http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=417171&key=0
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 05:14 PM   #3
Crusader
Senior Member
 
Crusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 242
Default

I'll take a guess...
#1. Pull the weed in the foreground and maybe try and get some light on that rail. Seems to be the difference between yours and the accepted shot. If you can't get direct sun, maybe rig up something as a reflector. I like the shot tho.
#2. I've been fooled by the "too much or too little" rejections before, but I'm gonna say yours has too much contrast. Try taking it down a notch. Maybe play with the saturation as well.

Just my 2cents.
__________________
View my photos on RP.net
Crusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 05:30 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

#1: your shot is poorly exposed, has a distracting background, blurry but still enough detail to be distracting, and has a blah composition. The comparison photo has balanced lighting - the side of the rail is lit rather in shadow, it has a pleasant diagonal line, it has the texture of the leaves, it has a nondescript background.

Having the side of the rail in shadow is a particular problem, it means you basically can't get balance across the shot in brightness, and your point of emphasis, the text on the rail, has the worst of the light.
__________________
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 09-09-2007, 05:33 PM   #5
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

#2: it looks like a mid-day shot, with all of the excessive contrast shooting at that time entails. Perhaps you can simply turn down the contrast a bit and it will be fine.
__________________
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 09-09-2007, 06:39 PM   #6
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

It's one of those situations where if you can't see the differences (plural) between the accepted shot and the rejected shot, then I'm not sure we're going to be able to help you. In the accepted shot, it's crisp and clear, the lighting is spot on and there is interesting foreground. The writing is well lit and not in a shadow.

In your shot, first, there is the aforementioned shadow. There is also the distracting background and almost no foreground. The rail is not level and the shot is overexposed, probably because you're trying to get detail on the writing. The shot is also a tad soft.

You asked: which is it Poor Esthetic Quality: This rejection reason means that the photo is of low esthetic qualities, or is simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish. In this case, I'd say it's both.

Also, your photo information is wrong, but that's the least of your trouble.

Shot #2 -- Looks a tad off in exposure, like it's too hot. I would reject it for bad composition or cropping. The Fairmont is too little a part of the picture for my tastes.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:06 PM   #7
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
It's one of those situations where if you can't see the differences (plural) between the accepted shot and the rejected shot, then I'm not sure we're going to be able to help you. In the accepted shot, it's crisp and clear, the lighting is spot on and there is interesting foreground. The writing is well lit and not in a shadow.

In your shot, first, there is the aforementioned shadow. There is also the distracting background and almost no foreground. The rail is not level and the shot is overexposed, probably because you're trying to get detail on the writing. The shot is also a tad soft.

You asked: which is it Poor Esthetic Quality: This rejection reason means that the photo is of low esthetic qualities, or is simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish. In this case, I'd say it's both.

Also, your photo information is wrong, but that's the least of your trouble.

Shot #2 -- Looks a tad off in exposure, like it's too hot. I would reject it for bad composition or cropping. The Fairmont is too little a part of the picture for my tastes.


Joe

first of all I was mainly referring to the statement "simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish" I get confused when I find the same type of photo somewhere else and as far as your statement of "your photo information is wrong, but that's the least of your trouble", just what exactly are you referring to?
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:37 PM   #8
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

I always took the statement "not the type of material we are willing to publish" speaks directly to the photograph in question. I've got that rejection before, but I'm sure if I looked through all 170,000 photographs, I could find one similiar to mine in some way.

As for the photot information being wrong, you're listing it as a 2-8-2 when you're showing a piece of rail.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:40 PM   #9
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sd9
first of all I was mainly referring to the statement "simply not the type of material we are wishing to publish" I get confused when I find the same type of photo somewhere else
I think sometimes we all have to remember that these are individual screeners making individual judgments in a fast manner. The screener in question may not have been the one who accepted the other. Or, the relevant part of the clause to this rejection may not have been the "simply..." part but rather the "low esthetic qualities" part. The various technical failings of your shot put in that category from my view, for example.

Quote:
and as far as your statement of "your photo information is wrong, but that's the least of your trouble", just what exactly are you referring to?
Well, for one, you say there is a 2-8-2 in the picture. It's well hidden.

Or that fuzzy thing in the background, which I didn't even realize was a car until looking this time around, actually a tender for a 2-8-2? It looks like a freight car to me. Even if it is a tender, I for one would not claim this shot to include a steam engine, I'd leave that slot blank.
__________________
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 09-09-2007, 07:44 PM   #10
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Bill,

Even though PIC#1 was shot at 1430L, if looks like it's a high sun shot since the side of the rail is in the shade (it could be because the sun is shining directly down the tracks, but that's a moot argument: the shade under the railhead is a killer).

As for the rejection of Poor Esthetic Quality, both reasons given are valid. Something that has esthetic quality esentially means that it's pleasing to the eye. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you've gotten several responses from folks telling you why it's not esthetically pleasing (the weed, the shadow, the background). As such, if something is not esthetically pleasing, wouldn't it also be the type of material that you wouldn't want to see published? You're looking for a difference in the verbage of the rejection reason, and there is none. Your rail shot (compared to the one that was accpeted) is not esthetically pleasing.

You'd have an argument if you had a much more pleasing shot but it got rejected for Bad Motive. In this case though, the rejection reason (and the expanded text that goes along with Poor Esthetic Quality) stands...
__________________

Last edited by Ween; 09-09-2007 at 07:46 PM.
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 08:17 PM   #11
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
I think sometimes we all have to remember that these are individual screeners making individual judgments in a fast manner. The screener in question may not have been the one who accepted the other. Or, the relevant part of the clause to this rejection may not have been the "simply..." part but rather the "low esthetic qualities" part. The various technical failings of your shot put in that category from my view, for example.



Well, for one, you say there is a 2-8-2 in the picture. It's well hidden.

Or that fuzzy thing in the background, which I didn't even realize was a car until looking this time around, actually a tender for a 2-8-2? It looks like a freight car to me. Even if it is a tender, I for one would not claim this shot to include a steam engine, I'd leave that slot blank.


so it's ok to leave some blanks in there, I put the 2-8-2 in there because I figured it had to be filled in and I had just stepped off of it,
I see the point everyone is making on the pics, I guess a lot comes down to the angle of sun/time of day.
is it safe to assume that if its high summer sun not bother? or do I have a lot to learn??
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 08:44 PM   #12
Chicago Railfan
Senior Member
 
Chicago Railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chi-Town subarbs
Posts: 224
Send a message via AIM to Chicago Railfan Send a message via Yahoo to Chicago Railfan
Default

I have to admit, I am not a fan of either of them. The light on the rail is to dull, and should have been taken at sunset or rise for that yellowish tint. Plus the angle is bad. The date is note worthy and the rejection might not be completely appropriete, but I can see why the rejected it.

The second picture is low in esthetic qualities. It is just a scoot car. It is not properly angled right, plus the fact that the bridge got cut off is a distraction.

Sorry if this hurts you, but this is what I see when I look at these pictures.
Chicago Railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 08:48 PM   #13
Crusader
Senior Member
 
Crusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 242
Default

I've been trying to solve the riddle of what makes a quality shot (and what the screeners like) for about 4 years. And I still have a lot to learn.

During late spring, early summer, it's hard to get any mid-day shots accepted. One exception might be a really unusual subject (rare equipment) or event (fire, derailment, etc.).
__________________
View my photos on RP.net

Last edited by Crusader; 09-09-2007 at 08:53 PM.
Crusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 09:21 PM   #14
Chicago Railfan
Senior Member
 
Chicago Railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chi-Town subarbs
Posts: 224
Send a message via AIM to Chicago Railfan Send a message via Yahoo to Chicago Railfan
Default

This summer their seemed to be alot of high-sun shots though.
Chicago Railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 03:00 AM   #15
BartY
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Railfan
This summer their seemed to be alot of high-sun shots though.
There always is, its a fact of life that the screeners can't seem to recognize. One or two shadows from a coupler or brake hose because the sun isn't at a perfect angle to light every last piece of brake rigging and even the bottom of the traction motors and it is "REJECT!!" (imagine the "Easy!" button)
BartY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 03:07 AM   #16
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BartY
There always is, its a fact of life that the screeners can't seem to recognize. One or two shadows from a coupler or brake hose because the sun isn't at a perfect angle to light every last piece of brake rigging and even the bottom of the traction motors and it is "REJECT!!" (imagine the "Easy!" button)
I haven't taken any photography courses, but I'm sure that no matter what you're shooting, noon-time shots in the summer are taught to be avoided because the angle of the sun produces such harsh light. In other words, it's not just a railphoto-only issue...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 03:30 AM   #17
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
the angle of the sun produces such harsh light.
Well-taken reminder, it's not just excessive shadows on the sides of rails, it is tied to an overall quality issue.
__________________
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
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 12:07 AM.


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