Old 05-25-2007, 09:10 PM   #1
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default These rejections seem rediculous

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=313776248

That one has clarity, good color and excellent subject matter.

Rejected for too little contrast

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=211102067

This one they rejected for a little to much grain on one part of the picture.

I'm going to edit them and re-submit.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2007, 09:21 PM   #2
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

The rejections seem pretty spot-on to me, for the most part. The first one you worte:

Quote:
That one has clarity, good color and excellent subject matter.

Rejected for too little contrast
But the lighting is terrible. It looks overcast and the sky in the background is completely blown out white.

For the second, you wrote:
Quote:
This one they rejected for a little to much grain on one part of the picture.
By one part, if you mean the one, entire picture, you're correct. There's alot of noise and the image quality is pretty poor.

If you're going to re-work them, the first one's probably a lost cause with the lighting (although in B&W it might look better) and the second one has too much noise/pixelation issues to overcome...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2007, 09:24 PM   #3
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

You may not care for the responses but they are certainly not "rediculous" (sic). Maybe you don't realize how you come across in this post.

[quote=Greg P]http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=313776248

That one has clarity, good color and excellent subject matter.

Rejected for too little contrast [.quote]

I don't know what you mean by "clarity"(sharpness?). Color is average for the poor light conditions, subject matter is decent enough but where does "excellent" come from? Check the screener's choices for those! But the conditions are not great, the light is dull, as one would expect on an overcast day. BTW, in the remarks, change "stars" to "stares".

Quote:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=211102067

This one they rejected for a little to much grain on one part of the picture.
I see grain not only on the nose of the engine, but on the sides and tops of the cars, and throughout the engine terminal. In fact, the only place I don't see noise is in the ballast. It can be mighty tough to detect noise in ballast!

Quote:
I'm going to edit them and re-submit.
That's the customary procedure!
__________________
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 05-25-2007, 09:25 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Hey Chris, maybe we should coordinate next time so we don't write the same stuff twice?
__________________
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 05-25-2007, 09:29 PM   #5
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

I'll take the midnight to noon slot!
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 02:35 AM   #6
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

I actually am interested in any help I can get, I'm just very frustrated because the issues being addressed are approaching the technical limitations of my equipment. I can understand the issue with bad contrast, do I agree? Not really I think the subject matter is interesting, but I can understand that. The issue with the noise though, sounds like it's something my equipment is doing. I can't afford a DSLR so I have to use film. If grain is going to get my pictures rejected, I'll never be able to get pictures accepted. This was even taken on 100 ISO film to reduce grain. I'm trying to buy a new film scanner soon, could this help?
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 02:41 AM   #7
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
I'm trying to buy a new film scanner soon, could this help?
Well, the money spent on a quality scanner could be easily used on an entry-level dSLR.

Olympus E-Volt w/ lens $499.95:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

Nikon D40 w/ lens $524.95:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 03:24 AM   #8
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
I actually am interested in any help I can get, I'm just very frustrated because the issues being addressed are approaching the technical limitations of my equipment. I can understand the issue with bad contrast, do I agree? Not really I think the subject matter is interesting, but I can understand that. The issue with the noise though, sounds like it's something my equipment is doing. I can't afford a DSLR so I have to use film. If grain is going to get my pictures rejected, I'll never be able to get pictures accepted. This was even taken on 100 ISO film to reduce grain. I'm trying to buy a new film scanner soon, could this help?
Take heart Greg. I shoot with film and find the challenges of getting these pictures on RP require a great deal of effort on my part. Take a read of the following thread. You may find it helpful in dealing with scanning pictures. It helped me.
http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=5075
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 06:59 AM   #9
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

That thread gave me a good idea to try to maybe use my flatbed to scan the print. I could get better resolution. I'm not giving up on the Deerfield Yard Picture.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 07:48 AM   #10
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
That thread gave me a good idea to try to maybe use my flatbed to scan the print. I could get better resolution. I'm not giving up on the Deerfield Yard Picture.
If the actual photo looks as grainy as the scan you posted, then you should give up any hope of having it accepted.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 09:27 AM   #11
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

I don't think the screeners are who is being ridiculous.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 12:21 PM   #12
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
I actually am interested in any help I can get, I'm just very frustrated because the issues being addressed are approaching the technical limitations of my equipment. I can understand the issue with bad contrast, do I agree? Not really I think the subject matter is interesting, but I can understand that. The issue with the noise though, sounds like it's something my equipment is doing. I can't afford a DSLR so I have to use film. If grain is going to get my pictures rejected, I'll never be able to get pictures accepted. This was even taken on 100 ISO film to reduce grain. I'm trying to buy a new film scanner soon, could this help?
A couple of comments:

- if you can't afford a DSLR, you can still get a quality digicam, say 5-6mp, used, and get good stuff in here. I have several shots from my former 4mp Canon A80 here. I think you could easily spend $200 on a used digicam of good quality that isn't the latest and greatest and do ok here. I would nonetheless advise stretching the budget as far as possible and going with a DSLR. I would only put money into a film scanner if you have a significant number of film shots from the past that you really, really want to make digital.

- the grain is severe, suggesting a variety of problems. It's not the choice of film, it is somewhere else in the chain of events, perhaps multiple places. Underexposure, bad scan, bad processing... I'm not a film person so I cannot advise. But I've shot enough film back in the day to know it isn't the film. And I've seen lots of film pictures accepted here so it's not the choice of film as sensor.
__________________
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 05-26-2007, 03:15 PM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
Reason(s) for Rejection:
- Bad Contrast: The image suffers from either too much or too little contrast.

Reason(s) for Rejection:
- Too Much Noise/Grain: Noise is the digital equivalent of grain.
See, folks, this is what happens when you don't store a film camera upright.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2007, 09:06 PM   #14
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias.
See, folks, this is what happens when you don't store a film camera upright.
Repetitiveness is boring.

Last edited by Mike B.; 05-26-2007 at 09:09 PM.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2007, 03:12 PM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
Repetitiveness is boring.
Come on, Mike, lighten up.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2007, 03:18 PM   #16
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

If repetitiveness was boring, we wouldn't keep shooting trains, loading the shots to RP and talking about them here. If repetitiveness was boring, we wouldn't keep shooting trains, loading the shots to RP and talking about them here.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2007, 10:55 PM   #17
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
If repetitiveness was boring, we wouldn't keep shooting trains, loading the shots to RP and talking about them here. If repetitiveness was boring, we wouldn't keep shooting trains, loading the shots to RP and talking about them here.


Joe
I don't know what you do when you're shooting, but I've never had two days alike when I've been shooting trains. Loading photos on here is repetitive, and is part of the reason why I've stopped lately.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 06:25 AM   #18
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

I re-scanned it and did some stuff with photoshop. Any thoughts?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg grsnew.jpg (332.0 KB, 153 views)
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 03:27 PM   #19
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Looking at that and assuming the scanner or photoshopping didn't bring the quality down, I'd give up on that particular print and never use that film again. Was it high ISO? I'd reccomend switching to 400 or 200 at the very least, and if you really want to get quality film pictures, switch to some good Fuji 100 ASA slide film.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 03:45 PM   #20
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Also high sun, no surprise given that it looks to have been shot at about the same time as the other one, and poor image quality. I suggest setting this one aside also.
__________________
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 05-30-2007, 10:46 PM   #21
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P
I re-scanned it and did some stuff with photoshop. Any thoughts?
Sorry, Greg, but the first one, which wasn't up to RP standards, looks better than your second attempt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
I don't know what you do when you're shooting, but I've never had two days alike when I've been shooting trains.
Of COURSE you haven't, Mike! That's because YOU ARE PERFECT, unlike the rest of us here who occasionally have repetitive days of photographing trains.

Anything to make you look better than the rest, I guess.

I bet you're that guy at the party who always has to one-up the rest of the people, aren't you. Someone's telling a story and you're like, "Oh yeah, well listen to THIS!"

I guess if that's what keeps your world interesting, more power to ya.

Last edited by JimThias; 05-30-2007 at 10:50 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 10:59 PM   #22
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
I bet you're that guy at the party who always has to one-up the rest of the people, aren't you. Someone's telling a story and you're like, "Oh yeah, well listen to THIS!"
From now on we'll call Mike B. "Topper"!~
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan

Last edited by socalrailfan; 05-30-2007 at 11:04 PM.
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:03 PM   #23
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

I tweaked this one a bit, seems a bit better to me.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled-1.jpg (432.6 KB, 115 views)
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:04 PM   #24
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Dave,

Still alot of noise in the windshield area...this one might be lost...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:05 PM   #25
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Still grainy as hell, Dave.

By the way, good nick for MB.
JimThias 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 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.