Old 11-13-2011, 02:35 PM   #1
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default ugh. why not tell me to begin with

This shot was rejected for soft/grain/undersharpened like six times. That's fine. For the most part I can deal with that. Then after considerable work on processing I get bombed with foreground clutter. I'm fine with that too (and sort of expected it), but not after six rejections that had no mention of it.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=986374&key=0
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 03:19 PM   #2
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

It's also leaning to the left. That would be rejection #8.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 03:23 PM   #3
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,687
Default

I'd give it number 9 for PIQ. Sorry

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 03:26 PM   #4
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,893
Default

Well, the foreground clutter would have been less obstructive had you let the train move further down the track and shot wider. I'm not liking the train or the skyline cut off on the right.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 03:30 PM   #5
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Default

Whatever technical problems the image has, I would ding it for being too "busy", foreground clutter, and poorly cropped. While I can't say the train gets lost in the clutter, at the same time my eye doesn't easily find a focus point.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 03:46 PM   #6
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,986
Default

Rob,

When this happens, it generally means the Screener sees too many little issues with the image and the combination just leaves him not liking it. I concur with the folks who say the image quality is a bit lacking. From my perspective, I would have prefered you shoot a second or two later, so you would not have cut off so many foreground elements such as the billboard on the left, the car close to the tracks, or the pole. Waiting a second longer might also have changed the sun angle slightly and eliminated the glare on the nose of the locomotive. Do you have later frames that might mitigate these issues and provide a cleaner composition?

I usually follow the 3-strike rule. If I can't get a shot in after 3 tries, I put it aside and move on to something else. With 6 strikes, I'd say they not only don't want this shot, but you're probably not making any friends on the RP Staff by continuing to submit it.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 04:18 PM   #7
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Just another one of my crazy attempts to get a film shot on. I just wish they would've nailed it with PEQ right off the bat.
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 05:13 PM   #8
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
Just another one of my crazy attempts to get a film shot on. I just wish they would've nailed it with PEQ right off the bat.
Yes, this would have been a good PEQ. I would encourage the screeners to use PEQ more often, especially when there is no one problem that jumps out....since they have to work quickly. They are screeners not critics, and don't have time to provide much thoughtful criticism. I think that would avoid a lot of the frustration here.

Hey, nothing wrong with film. Most of my images here started out on film. But sometimes it is more work....digital originals tend to be a bit more idiot proof....which has improved my photography immeasureably.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 07:08 PM   #9
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Yes, this would have been a good PEQ. I would encourage the screeners to use PEQ more often, especially when there is no one problem that jumps out....since they have to work quickly. They are screeners not critics, and don't have time to provide much thoughtful criticism. I think that would avoid a lot of the frustration here.
I hear you, I understand, I see where you are going, ... but, ... if you increase the rate of PEQ you are not going to avoid frustration, you are just going to shift it to a different rejection reason.
__________________
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 11-13-2011, 07:24 PM   #10
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

People still shoot film?
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 08:43 PM   #11
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
I hear you, I understand, I see where you are going, ... but, ... if you increase the rate of PEQ you are not going to avoid frustration, you are just going to shift it to a different rejection reason.
PEQ has multiple advantages. One it is more general, so it is harder to get "wrong". Secondly, it is clearly just an opinion, so more difficult to argue with. I think a lot of the frustration has to do with specific reasons that are clearly wrong, or at least not complete. Thirdly, suggesting a specific technical issue suggests that if that one thing is fixed the image probably will be accepted. PEQ kinda suggests....don't bother. And I think PEQ is often more honest.

On the other hand if an image is good but clearly has one or two technical shortcomings that can be fixed, then citing those reasons would be appropriate (assuming the screener can get it right working quickly).

But you are right in the sense that another part of the frustration is related to consistency, and that is kind of inherent to the beast since there is more than one screener, and the screeners are only human.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 08:50 PM   #12
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,893
Default

I've goptten shots in on appeal that were originally PEQ'ed. Since it is an opinion reject and is obviously very subjective, I think it can be the most maddening reject of all. I'd like to see PEQs come with an explanation and in fact, that is often how I appeal them when I do appeal them, by asking for an explanation. Sometimes I still don't get an explanation, just an appeal that I've won.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 09:03 PM   #13
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
I've goptten shots in on appeal that were originally PEQ'ed. Since it is an opinion reject and is obviously very subjective, I think it can be the most maddening reject of all. I'd like to see PEQs come with an explanation and in fact, that is often how I appeal them when I do appeal them, by asking for an explanation. Sometimes I still don't get an explanation, just an appeal that I've won.
I think it really boils down to how much time the screeners have, or are willing to take. As has been pointed out in other posts and threads, they don't have a whole bunch of time. But clearly some images get more attention than others. Any rejection can be maddening, but I think the most frustrating are ones that are obviously wrong. And clearly a PEQ is only that sceener's opinion, so it does not surprise me that some appeals of PEQ have been successful.

Probably no perfect answer.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 10:01 PM   #14
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

I do think that as they redesign the site; they should consider a policy on terminal rejections vs correctable rejections.

IE, in this case, he gets a correctable reject, then a terminal one.

Of course, it will still vary by who considers what fixable, but a nice thought that might help a bit.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 03:49 AM   #15
jac_murphy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
People still shoot film?
Yep.

-Jacques
jac_murphy 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 12:36 PM.


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