Old 06-13-2007, 04:07 PM   #1
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default "Balance" rejection--please explain in detail

Hi guys!!
I have here a photo I shot of Amtrak this morning that was slammed with the "Composition is poor relating to the 'overall balance' of the image." I can understand the oversharpening, as I can easily correct that. But the "overall balance" issue is totally new to me. Anyone have any suggestions?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...id=382923&key=0. I have also attached the original uncropped/unedited image. Thanks in advance for your help!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 152.jpg (78.6 KB, 248 views)

Last edited by amtrakboy; 06-13-2007 at 04:10 PM.
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 04:08 PM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

The link to the rejection does not work for me.
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 04:11 PM   #3
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default

How do I type the link to the rejection?
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 04:12 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Ah, some missing letters, somehow the ellipsis got in there and did not expand. Try
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=382923&key=0
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 04:17 PM   #5
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=382923

Let's see if this works!!
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 04:23 PM   #6
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

I have no suggestion on the composition/balance, sorry.

Minor note: you should redo the remark, which has been truncated, I presume due to a field length limit. For starters, you do not need to mention locomotive numbers or train numbers, since they are clearly evident in the picture or in the identifying info. Same for the park name.
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 04:24 PM   #7
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Both mine and yours work.
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 05:02 PM   #8
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Just looks like it was shot at a bad angle. It's not quite a wedgie and not a broadside. Plus, it looks to be shot with a wide angle lens which only hurts it.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 05:08 PM   #9
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,885
Default

The not a wedgie, not a broad side remark pretty much nailed it. It's just not interesting to look at. I'm now a covert to the Andrew B/Mitch G line of thinking that if you're going to shoot a wedgie, letthe train trail out of frame (or include the whole train if you can) instead of cutting it off like you did in this shot.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 05:13 PM   #10
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default

And this one was rejected for "Bad Image Quality," which I very much tend to disagree with. Please explain. All comments/criticisms appreciated!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=382950&key=0
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 05:17 PM   #11
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

The second one, it looks like you have great image quality in the center foreground grasses, but by the time you get to the train, things have deteriorated. And the ballast doesn't look especially good. And then the trees, even the plants just to the right of the nose, don't look sharp.

So I agree with the screener - to the extent I can tell on this particular monitor, which is not my preferred one.
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 05:20 PM   #12
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
It's just not interesting to look at.
I agree with this, although I would not say it quite so bluntly. It is not as interesting as your previously accepted shot which is now also your avatar, which has some foreground stuff and just has a more interesting feel. This one is just a nondescript wedgie. Well, maybe that is equally blunt!
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 05:23 PM   #13
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amtrakboy
And this one was rejected for "Bad Image Quality," which I very much tend to disagree with. Please explain. All comments/criticisms appreciated!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=382950&key=0
Barely being able to read the numberboard on the lead locomotive is never good. Very little of the photo is in focus.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 05:24 PM   #14
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default

Thanks for the help!! I'll keep at it and see if I can try something new and different--learning by the time-honored "trial-and-error" process!!!
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 07:05 PM   #15
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

I recently had this rejection too, so I think I'll piggyback on Bill's thread to see if you guys can give me some pointers.

I'm going to retake this shot. It's one that grew on me after I took it, but was rejected for Bad Balance. I know that the positioning of the train isn't centered on the photo, but it doesn't really look too terrible this way, at least to me, and I rather like it. Maybe it's just me, but it seems silly to specify exactly where the train should be located on a photo.

When I first learned of this new rejection, I figured it would deal primarily with excessive dead space. Hopefully someone can clear me up on it! I must admit I liked the old "Bad Cropping" better!

Here's the reject, and I'd appreciate any thoughts on composing this shot when I redo it. Thanks.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=382537&key=0
__________________
My Railpictures Shots http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=2561
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 07:16 PM   #16
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ken45
I know that the positioning of the train isn't centered on the photo, but it doesn't really look too terrible this way, at least to me, and I rather like it. Maybe it's just me, but it seems silly to specify exactly where the train should be located on a photo. ]
I'd remove some of the sky at the top, that's the excessive dead space, and then it looks good to me. It isn't that the train isn't centered, but rather that it is too close to the center, in the vertical dimension. It's a rule of thirds issue, which RP may simply have a stronger preference for than you do. And they are not saying "exactly" but they are saying that in their opinion (and mine) it would look better if the train were located elsewhere.
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 07:19 PM   #17
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ken45
When I first learned of this new rejection, I figured it would deal primarily with excessive dead space.
Your photo does have too much dead space. Try to find some scrubby desert growth closer to the tracks.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 08:30 PM   #18
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

I think I'll retake it with less sky and moving a few feet to my right so the plant is closer to the signal. That should balance it out more.
__________________
My Railpictures Shots http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=2561
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 08:42 PM   #19
Carl Becker
Senior Member
 
Carl Becker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Minor note: you should redo the remark, which has been truncated, I presume due to a field length limit.
JRMDC:

That actually only showed up because the photo was rejected. When a photo is accepted, the remarks length limit is infinate. But when the photo gets rejected, the remarks get cut off to the point that accepted photos used to. If his image had been accepted, the entire remarks would have shown.

Here's a thread on the remarks field limit:

http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=4557

[PS - If you type a lot of remarks on your photo (like this one) and it gets rejected, when you go back to the add photos page to resubmit it, the remarks will be cut off as shown on the rejected photo and you will have to retype the rest.]
Carl Becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 08:44 PM   #20
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ken45
I think I'll retake it with less sky and moving a few feet to my right so the plant is closer to the signal. That should balance it out more.
Your choice; personally I don't think you have a problem with the distance between plant and signal. You may want to move a bit closer to the plant, however, so as to use it to fully hide the telephone poles here visible along its fringes.

But I think this one would be accepted with cropping.
__________________
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 06-13-2007, 09:00 PM   #21
Carl Becker
Senior Member
 
Carl Becker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amtrakboy
That's a really nice shot. Unfortunately your camera, as stated, seemed to focus on other than the train resulting in the rest of the photo standing out more than the train. The quality is most noticeably poor, in my opinion, right above the Amtrak logo.

It looks like your avatar photo was taken at that location also. It seems as though lately there are more similar photo rejections, even when the train is not the same one but very similar and at the same location. That avatar shot looks nice so I would be glad to have that one on.
Carl Becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 09:07 PM   #22
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Becker
JRMDC:

That actually only showed up because the photo was rejected. ...
Thanks, Carl.
__________________
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 06-18-2007, 05:01 AM   #23
MILWfan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amtrakboy
And this one was rejected for "Bad Image Quality," which I very much tend to disagree with. Please explain. All comments/criticisms appreciated!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=382950&key=0
The train is ok, but the backround seems out of focus and some places over sharpened.
__________________
Milwaukee Road fan
Canon 400D
MILWfan 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 11:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.