Old 11-23-2011, 03:40 AM   #51
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pick View Post
Well, you can't say they're not open minded:

Image © Bryant Kaden
PhotoID: 381846
Photograph © Bryant Kaden
I keep trying to wrap my head around this shot, although I am not quite sure it's possible.

Image © familymansystem
PhotoID: 381832
Photograph © familymansystem
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 05:04 AM   #52
Missabefan
Senior Member
 
Missabefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

And we have now come full circle I think.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=987108&key=0

The shot that started it all...What's a guy to do.

Todd M.
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Missabefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 06:23 AM   #53
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
As someone wrote not long ago, the stream of image uploads to RP might (for simplicity sake) be divided into three groups:

Those shots that are obviously bad from a technical standpoint;
Those shots that are obviously good, very good, or outstanding, and;
The rest of the shots (the middle)

I think RP's screeners are sufficiently competent to reject the lowest group of shots. However, they end up in a quagmire with the top two groups. They're rejecting some good, very good, and even outstanding shots (...and this is not about anything I've submitted....since 90 percent or more of my very mediocre photography is accepted here...), and then accepting some in the middle group that could easily fall into the lower category.

Frankly, I've lost confidence in the RP screening process. From the time I've been following some rejections (of other shots, not mine) on this forum lately, I'm just aghast at how consistently "wrong" they are. Again---I would tend to be far more inclusive, rather than exclusive if I were a screener. This is all about more....not less.

I know quite a few outstanding photographers who have no interest whatsoever in participating in RP. They find it "amusing." Also, many outstanding photographers have no intentions of having their images plastered around the internet (even though a low resolution JPEG in the public domain can't be abused all that much; the "copyright" tag offers as much protection as a leaky condom at a college orgy).

I do support RP....and have since the beginning (remember, I have image number 6 in the data base, so I've been around for a long time here). That said----I do think it's time for a "make over."

Frankly, I don't want Chris, Chris, Chase, Erik or Dave telling me (or you) what we "shouldn't" see. I would rather be the judge----basically, because many of us know as much, or more, about "good photography" as any of them. If they would just weed out that first group I mentioned, let us----those who pull up RP every day on our computers to see "what's new"---decide ourselves. Anyone who purports to understand "Poor Esthetic Quality" is either a liar or a fool.

This site should never be about anyone groveling around at the feet of RP's screeners for some degree of respect and recognition. They should merely weed out the obviously poor quality images---and that's it.

If the alternative thought is that RP should somehow be seen as the "best" train photos, hands down----the image base will never make a compelling case for anything like that. If that were the goal----replace all the current screeners with a jury of acknowledged "experts" and ramp the rejection rate up to about 95 percent. I'm sure the submissions would be heavy....maybe two or three a day at most.
That summarizes the issues and our recent experience pretty well. I would make two changes to the way RP works. One, I would limit every contributor to maybe one or two images per week (force the contributors to do a bit of screening, but in his or her terms). Secondly, the screeners should be instructed to reject only the obviously bad images (Ron's group one above). The group two images should get an automatic appeal, in other words more than one screener. A third possibility, but this depends on the work load, would be for two kinds of rejections: one, forget it don't bother to try to fix and resubmit, and two, nice image fix it and resubmit.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 12:23 PM   #54
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
Guys...guys....

I will concede the "level" issue (although I still think many of you obsess over a fraction of a degree far too much)
I am guilty as charged.

Here's an example photo that is bugging the hell out of me:

Image © Jeremiah Rindahl
PhotoID: 381830
Photograph © Jeremiah Rindahl


Amazing photograph...but why couldn't Jeremiah level it? And how did the screener miss that? The lean to the left is all I see now when I look at it. It's like a picture hanging unlevel on a wall. My eyes are drawn to that and my OCD nature won't let me get over it. I can't. Maybe I need to seek counseling.

Ron, I hope everything goes well with your wife's surgery.
__________________
.
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

Last edited by JimThias; 11-23-2011 at 12:26 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 12:40 PM   #55
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

artistically unlevel?

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 11-23-2011, 01:08 PM   #56
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I am guilty as charged.

Here's an example photo that is bugging the hell out of me:

Image © Jeremiah Rindahl
PhotoID: 381830
Photograph © Jeremiah Rindahl

.
Jeez, I didn't see it at first, now it will bug the crap out of me every time I see it. Thanks!
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 02:24 PM   #57
magicman_841
Senior Member
 
magicman_841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 1,024
Default

Image © Todd M.
PhotoID: 381937
Photograph © Todd M.


Looks good to me!
__________________
Mathieu Tremblay
Choo photos
magicman_841 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 02:43 PM   #58
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I keep trying to wrap my head around this shot, although I am not quite sure it's possible.

Image © familymansystem
PhotoID: 381832
Photograph © familymansystem
I saw that one too and was quite surprised. Go figure.
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 04:33 PM   #59
viper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Thunderhorn (US)
Posts: 90
Default

Best wishes for you and yours Ron, hope all goes well for the wife.
viper 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 10:40 PM.


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