Old 10-19-2016, 07:34 PM   #1
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default Composition Rejection--Unsure of Correction

New to posting, though I've been reading the forum discussions for awhile.

I submitted the photo below in one version, and it was rejected for composition; I corrected it for composition, or at least I thought I had, but it was rejected for same thing. Any insight into what I should do to correct the problem would be greatly appreciated.

First submission: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...94&key=2861524

Second submission: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...10&key=9489225
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 07:40 PM   #2
Grewup on the CW
Senior Member
 
Grewup on the CW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 242
Default

My guess (as I'm fairly new myself) would be to try cropping some off the top of your second submission.
Some of the veterans on here might count that as "dead space"
Grewup on the CW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 08:10 PM   #3
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 771
Default

Yes, seemingly you cropped off the right but not the top? Besides that it seems to me the whole image tone/color etc changed???

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 08:13 PM   #4
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
Yes, seemingly you cropped off the right but not the top? Besides that it seems to me the whole image tone/color etc changed???

Bob
1. Yes; my goal, perhaps misguided, was to keep the train on the lower third.
2. Yes; I went to the original RAW file for the second. But that wasn't the reject reason on either version. At least not for this round.
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 09:31 PM   #5
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 640
Default

Keeping the train in the lower third is the right way to go, however I think there's too much sky as is.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 09:54 PM   #6
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

The rule of thirds is a matter of judgment. In this case, if you follow it strictly, you get an imbalance because of the difference in compositional "weight" top vs bottom. "Empty space" is one aspect of this but the concept is a bit more general. The key is visual balance and interest. Rule of thirds, first and foremost, tells us to get things off center because that is generally more visually interesting. I think that is simply because of how the human mind functions, but I digress. Also, note that symmetry is an important exception - if you are going for some aspect of symmetry, then a centering (horizontal and/or vertical) is appropriate.

Here, the top of the image is just dull, so have less of it.
__________________
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 10-20-2016, 12:36 AM   #7
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Thanks for the comments. I have been previously advised to apply the rule of thirds ruthlessly, but I also confess to liking the sky in my photos--too much, I think. So sometimes I'm not sure where the most appropriate cutoff is. I will take another go at this one. Thanks again.
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 01:44 AM   #8
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

As has been discussed ad naseum in this forum, the stated rejection reason does not always tell the whole story. In addition to composition that others have offered suggestions for, in the second version the locomotive is too contrasty and needs to have the highlights toned down a bit. Your basic challenge is you have common power and not much else of interest to provide any identifiable context. While the screeners do allegedly love wedgies, this is a pretty plain vanilla wedgie and even if the lighting and composition were perfect it might have a tough time getting accepted. I'm saying all that negative stuff just to improve your chances of proving me wrong!
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 02:25 AM   #9
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
As has been discussed ad naseum in this forum, the stated rejection reason does not always tell the whole story. In addition to composition that others have offered suggestions for, in the second version the locomotive is too contrasty and needs to have the highlights toned down a bit. Your basic challenge is you have common power and not much else of interest to provide any identifiable context. While the screeners do allegedly love wedgies, this is a pretty plain vanilla wedgie and even if the lighting and composition were perfect it might have a tough time getting accepted. I'm saying all that negative stuff just to improve your chances of proving me wrong!
Thanks for the pointer on the second photo; I'm certainly not yet ready to quit my day job to become a photo processor as I tend to Overprocess sometimes. That comment actually helps me. As for the remainder, I know, I know, but thought I'd try. 😀
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 03:13 AM   #10
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Crop something like this: Click image for larger version

Name:	1860.1476889538a.jpg
Views:	101
Size:	1.06 MB
ID:	9278
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 03:31 AM   #11
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Crop something like this: Attachment 9278
Thanks for the suggestion! That helps because that's about where my thinking was headed based on the comments. Now to see if there's another reason lurking around.
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 04:08 AM   #12
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoDogGo View Post
Thanks for the suggestion! ... Now to see if there's another reason lurking around.
Isn't there always?
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 06:12 AM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoDogGo View Post
New to posting, though I've been reading the forum discussions for awhile.

I submitted the photo below in one version, and it was rejected for composition; I corrected it for composition, or at least I thought I had, but it was rejected for same thing. Any insight into what I should do to correct the problem would be greatly appreciated.

First submission: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...94&key=2861524

Second submission: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...10&key=9489225
The second rejection is closer to where you should be as far as the space on the sides, but you've got too much sky. Process it again and crop at a 3:2 ratio (1200x800, for example). No reason that scene needs to be in the ratio you have it.
__________________
.
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 10-20-2016, 02:49 PM   #14
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default Cascading Rejection Reasons

The good news: with everyone's helpful advice, I fixed the composition problem.

The bad news: now it's a hue problem, which I confess is a rejection that my limited mind finds difficult to understand so any explanation of that would also be appreciated, for future purposes if not for this one. Thanks again.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...10&key=7579710
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 04:21 PM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Sky needs to be a little bluer, and less aqua. Also looks to my eyes like it needs a little boost in contrast.
__________________
.
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; 10-20-2016 at 04:23 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 04:27 PM   #16
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Sky needs to be a little bluer, and less aqua. Also looks to my eyes like it needs a little boost in contrast.
Thanks! Like I said, I'm never sure exactly what that rejection means because I haven't really developed the eye for distinguishing the hues, and I seem to either under contrast or over contrast. That helps a lot.
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 04:30 PM   #17
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoDogGo View Post
Thanks! Like I said, I'm never sure exactly what that rejection means because I haven't really developed the eye for distinguishing the hues, and I seem to either under contrast or over contrast. That helps a lot.
I think the hue issue is due to the image being slightly overexposed. With a little tweaking you should be able to get it looking just right. The crop is much better now and I don't believe you'll run into any more issues with that.
__________________
.
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 10-20-2016, 04:41 PM   #18
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I think the hue issue is due to the image being slightly overexposed. With a little tweaking you should be able to get it looking just right. The crop is much better now and I don't believe you'll run into any more issues with that.
Thanks--and understood; sorry to be a pest, but this is very helpful to me. Is the attached better in your view? I darkened highlights and increased midtone contrast in Photoshop Elements. Frankly, the look of the clouds bothers me.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	_MG_4682.mod6a.jpg
Views:	210
Size:	1.28 MB
ID:	9280  
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 07:14 PM   #19
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoDogGo View Post
Thanks--and understood; sorry to be a pest, but this is very helpful to me. Is the attached better in your view? I darkened highlights and increased midtone contrast in Photoshop Elements. Frankly, the look of the clouds bothers me.
Basically I think that is as good as it is going to get, a perfectly good wedgie. Whether the screeners will think it "interesting" enough to accept is hard to say, it is a pretty basic wedgie. Just to nit pick a bit more, if it were my picture I would darken it just a tad, the highlights still look a bit bright to me, but that may just be my bias for more saturated colors...I'm an old Kodachrome guy.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 07:24 PM   #20
GoDogGo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Basically I think that is as good as it is going to get, a perfectly good wedgie. Whether the screeners will think it "interesting" enough to accept is hard to say, it is a pretty basic wedgie. Just to nit pick a bit more, if it were my picture I would darken it just a tad, the highlights still look a bit bright to me, but that may just be my bias for more saturated colors...I'm an old Kodachrome guy.
Thanks, and I certainly understand the issues with the shot itself (and taking into account apparent acceptance inconsistencies). As for the darkening, I generally agree but RP seems to me to like pictures brighter so I have steered away from that; having said that, I've been tinkering with darkening it a bit more since I posted that photo above in response to Mr. Thias. Like I said above, though, this process has been helpful to me regardless of the photo's acceptance; I am happy to put it on Flickr.
GoDogGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 07:56 PM   #21
Rene de Vries
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 21
Default

Hi all,

I'll just add my picture to this discussion:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...96&key=8380724

I don't see the train being in the middle of the picture (or being too close to the edges).
And I'd hate to take something away from the background...

This - for me - is one of those "awkward composition doesn't make sense pictures"..

Cheers

René
Rene de Vries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 08:40 PM   #22
Grewup on the CW
Senior Member
 
Grewup on the CW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene de Vries View Post
Hi all,

I'll just add my picture to this discussion:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...96&key=8380724

I don't see the train being in the middle of the picture (or being too close to the edges).
And I'd hate to take something away from the background...

This - for me - is one of those "awkward composition doesn't make sense pictures"..

Cheers

René
Here is my suggestion to your current pic. However I dont like my crop as it cuts the top of the cable supports off. If you snapped and another pic where the lead unit was closer to the right support post (apprx 10 feet closer to you) that would yield a better result. Just my opinion
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Suggestion.jpg
Views:	208
Size:	779.0 KB
ID:	9281  
Grewup on the CW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2016, 09:58 PM   #23
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grewup on the CW View Post
If you snapped and another pic where the lead unit was closer to the right support post (apprx 10 feet closer to you) that would yield a better result.
That is the issue. The framing is constrained by the catenary supports and the engine is just a bit too far way.

That said, I'm a bit surprised the image was rejected, I have seen far worse accepted. On the other hand the loco also suffers from a rather unattractive paint scheme which combined with the uncomfortable composition makes it a rather uninteresting picture. What it has going for it is good lighting and a great background, looks like a great location to wait for the next train and hope the loco has a better livery.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 10-20-2016 at 10:01 PM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 11:41 PM   #24
John Russell - NZ
Member
 
John Russell - NZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
That is the issue. The framing is constrained by the catenary supports and the engine is just a bit too far way.

That said, I'm a bit surprised the image was rejected, I have seen far worse accepted. On the other hand the loco also suffers from a rather unattractive paint scheme which combined with the uncomfortable composition makes it a rather uninteresting picture. What it has going for it is good lighting and a great background, looks like a great location to wait for the next train and hope the loco has a better livery.
Rene, this is a great photo. If this photo was accepted it would have my vote and favorite. Yes it would have been probably better taken wider with the train closer as others have pointed out. Personal preference such as lead unit color scheme can tip the scales which is one reason to try again and hope you strike a different screener. Be careful doing that though as I have had a warning for doing it. Always try to make some change or enhancement before resubmitting and detail that in the note to screener field. Having said that I have got acceptance making no changes at all to resubmitted images numerous times. Unfortunately, photos of foreign trains will more likely suffer from screener bias according to member feedback I have had from around the world.

Last edited by John Russell - NZ; 10-23-2016 at 11:50 PM.
John Russell - NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2016, 02:16 PM   #25
Rene de Vries
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 21
Default

Hi John
Hi John,

I found another version where the engines were closer...

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/593342/

I think the thing is that first of all, non American trains probably don't appeal to the screeners that much. That is fair enough but - as John mentioned - it makes it harder for foreign train pictures to be accepted here.

Second - the screeners obviously don't like it when there is more than just a train in the picture. Every now and then I find myself cropping a picture (because it was rejected with "awkward composition") and removing part of the scenery - in the end what is left is a picture where the focus is almost solely on the train...

But if you know this, you can obviously crop in advance and hope that the screeners are happy..

Cheers

René
Rene de Vries 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 03:48 PM.


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